Possible Therapeutic Use of Loperamide for Symptoms of Lactose Intolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine a potential practical therapeutic use of loperamide (Lo) to decrease the symptoms of lactose intolerance. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Nineteen (eight men, 11 women) healthy lactose maldigesters (18 of 19 with symptoms) underwent a 25 g lactose challenge on five separate days. Breath hydrogen was measured, areas under the curve (AUC) were calculated for 4 h, and 4 and 12 h symptom scores were recorded. After establishing baseline measurements, test doses of 4 mg, 8 mg and 12 mg Lo were randomly administered without placebo in a double-blind manner. As well, each subject received seven lactase tablets, in a random, unblinded manner. RESULTS: The median AUC and mean oral cecal transit time followed dose response expectations; however, only lactase treatment achieved significance. Nevertheless, 8 mg Lo significantly improved symptom scores, which were statistically indistinguishable from those of lactase. Four subjects complained of delayed constipation and cramps with various doses of Lo. CONCLUSIONS: Lo monotherapy for lactose intolerance is not economical and may have some side effects. However, Lo may be studied further as an adjunctive treatment of lactose intolerance in an effort to reduce the need for complete lactose digestion. Such a manoeuvre may allow rapid colonic adaptation, which in turn may be beneficial for prophylaxis for a number of colonic diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".