MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734797206 · doi:10.1039/c7fo00900c

Cranberries improve postprandial glucose excursions in type 2 diabetes

2017· article· en· W2734797206 on OpenAlexaff
Jace Schell, Nancy M. Betts, Megan Foster, R. Hal Scofield, Arpita Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueFood & Function · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsStillwater (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsPostprandialType 2 diabetesCrossover studyMedicineInsulin resistanceInternal medicineEndocrinologyMealMalondialdehydeDiabetes mellitusGlucose homeostasisLipid oxidationInsulinFood scienceChemistryOxidative stressAntioxidantBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) (mean ± s.d.) = 39.5 ± 6.5; age (years) = 56 ± 6) revealed that postprandial increases in glucose were significantly lower in the cranberry vs. control at 2 & 4 h (p < 0.05). No significant differences were noted in insulin, insulin resistance evaluated by homeostasis model assessment, lipid profiles and blood pressure between the cranberry and control groups. Among the biomarkers of inflammation and oxidation, postprandial serum interleukin-18 and malondialdehyde were significantly lower at 4 h, and serum total nitrite was higher at 2 h in the cranberry vs. control group (all p < 0.05). No effects were noted on C-reactive protein or interlukin-6. Overall, dietary cranberries had notable effects in improving high-fat breakfast induced postprandial glucose and selected biomarkers of inflammation and oxidation in participants with T2DM. These findings provide evidence that adding whole cranberries to a high-fat meal may improve postprandial blood glucose management and warrant further investigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood & FunctionSame topicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant ActivitiesFrench-language works237,207