Combination therapy of flaxseed and hesperidin enhances the effectiveness of lifestyle modification in cardiovascular risk control in prediabetes: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Regarding the increasing prevalence of cardiometabolic abnormalities, and its association with non-communicable chronic diseases, providing preventive and therapeutic strategies is a priority. A randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted to assess the effects of combination therapy of milled brown flaxseed and hesperidin during lifestyle intervention on controlling cardiovascular risk in prediabetes. METHODS: A total of forty-eight subjects were randomly assigned to receive lifestyle intervention plus combination therapy of brown flaxseed (30 g milled) and hesperidin (two 500 mg capsules) or lifestyle modification alone for 12 weeks. Changes from baseline in anthropometric measures, lipid profile and atherogenic indices, glucose homeostasis parameters, and inflammatory biomarkers was assessed as a primary end point. RESULTS: Anthropometric data comparison between the two groups showed a significant reduction in weight (p = 0.048). Waist circumference reduction was about twice that of the control group (- 6.75 cm vs - 3.57 cm), but this difference was not statistically significant. Comparison of blood pressure changes throughout the study indicated a greater reduction in blood pressure in the intervention group rather than control group (- 5.66 vs. - 1.56 mmHg, P = 0.049). Improvements of lipid profile and atherogenic indices, glucose homeostasis parameters, and inflammatory biomarkers in flaxseed-hesperidin group was significantly more than the control group after 12 weeks of intervention (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that co-administration of flaxseed and hesperidin as an adjunct to lifestyle modification program is more effective than lifestyle modification alone in the metabolic abnormalities remission of prediabetic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03737422. Registered 11 November 2018. Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT03737422&cntry=&state=&city=&dist= .
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) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".