The effect of small doses of fructose and allulose on postprandial glucose metabolism in type 2 diabetes: A double‐blind, randomized, controlled, acute feeding, equivalence trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim To assess and compare the effect of small doses of fructose and allulose on postprandial blood glucose regulation in type 2 diabetes. Methods A double‐blind, multiple‐crossover, randomized, controlled, acute feeding, equivalence trial in 24 participants with type 2 diabetes was conducted. Each participant was randomly assigned six treatments separated by > 1‐week washouts. Treatments consisted of fructose or allulose at 0 g (control), 5 g or 10 g added to a 75‐g glucose solution. A standard 75‐g oral glucose tolerance test protocol was followed with blood samples at −30, 0, 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes. The primary outcome measure was plasma glucose incremental area under the curve (iAUC). Results Allulose significantly reduced plasma glucose iAUC by 8% at 10 g compared with 0 g (717.4 ± 38.3 vs. 777.5 ± 39.9 mmol × min/L, P = 0.015) with a linear dose response gradient between the reduction in plasma glucose iAUC and dose ( P = 0.016). Allulose also significantly reduced several related secondary and exploratory outcome measures at 5 g (plasma glucose absolute mean and total AUC) and 10 g (plasma glucose absolute mean, absolute and incremental maximum concentration [C max ], and total AUC) ( P < .0125). There was no effect of fructose at any dose. Although allulose showed statistically significant reductions in plasma glucose iAUC compared with fructose at 5 g, 10 g and pooled doses, these reductions were within the pre‐specified equivalence margins of ±20%. Conclusion Allulose, but not fructose, led to modest reductions in the postprandial blood glucose response to oral glucose in individuals with type 2 diabetes. There is a need for long‐term randomized trials to confirm the sustainability of these improvements.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".