Determination of plasma and leukocyte vitamin C concentrations in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with Ester-C®
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid uptake of vitamin C into blood and retention in tissues are important indicators of the efficacy of vitamin C supplementation and its immune-supporting role. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bioavailability of vitamin C in plasma (reflective of recent intake) and leukocytes (reflective of tissue stores and influences on immune function) from a novel vitamin C formulation, Ester-C(®). METHODS: The study was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial. Thirty-six subjects, 18-60 years of age, were randomized to receive placebo (PL, 0 mg vitamin C), ascorbic acid (AA, 1000 mg vitamin C), and Ester-C(®) (EC, 1000 mg vitamin C). Plasma and leukocyte vitamin C were measured baseline and at 2, 4, 8 and 24 h postdose. RESULTS: The concentration and percent change from baseline in plasma were significantly higher with EC at all time points when compared to PL. No significant differences between EC and AA were observed in plasma concentration. Maximum plasma concentration was higher for EC compared to AA (P = 0.039) and PL (P < 0.001). Plasma area under the curve (AUC0-24h) was higher for EC (P < 0.001) compared to PL. The concentration change from baseline in leukocyte vitamin C was increased with EC at 24 h post-dose (P = 0.036) while no significant within-group changes were observed in AA or PL at any time point. The percent change in leukocyte vitamin C concentration was higher for EC at 8 and 24 h compared to AA (P = 0.028 and P = 0.034, respectively) and PL (P = 0.042 and P = 0.036, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A single dose of EC resulted in favorable percent change in leukocyte vitamin C concentration compared to AA and PL, indicating EC is retained longer within leukocytes. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01852903.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".