Sex May Modulate the Effects of Combined Polyphenol Extract and L-citrulline Supplementation on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Adults with Prehypertension: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased blood pressure (BP), vascular dysfunction and inflammation are involved in the etiology of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Although several dietary components such as polyphenols and L-citrulline may help to control BP, their combined impact on ambulatory BP in individuals at risk of CVD remains unknown. The objective of this research was to investigate the short-term impact of supplementation with a combination of polyphenol extract and L-citrulline on ambulatory BP, endothelial function and inflammation. In a randomized double-blind parallel trial, 73 men and women with prehypertension were supplemented with a placebo (cellulose, n = 34, Plac) or 548 mg/day of polyphenols and 2 g/day of L-citrulline (n = 35, Suppl) for 6 weeks. The primary outcome of this study was the difference between groups in 24-h ambulatory diastolic BP (DBP) at week six. Secondary outcomes were a difference between groups at week six in ambulatory systolic BP (SBP), casual BP, serum lipids and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) concentrations and skin advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Potential interaction of treatment with sex was examined. Suppl had no impact on mean ambulatory SBP and DBP (p > 0.10 vs. placebo). Daytime and 24-h SBP were reduced with Suppl in women (p ≤ 0.01), but not in men (p ≥ 0.27). A non-significant reduction in AGEs was observed after Suppl compared to Plac among all participants (p = 0.07) and there was no difference in the concentrations of blood lipids (p > 0.20) or CRP (p = 0.36) between treatments at week six. Therefore, supplementation with polyphenol extract and L-citrulline for 6 weeks has no impact on ambulatory BP, blood lipids and CRP in adults with prehypertension. However, the polyphenol extract/L-citrulline supplement may reduce ambulatory SBP in women, but not in men. These preliminary results need further research efforts towards further documenting this sex-dependent BP response to supplementation with polyphenols and L-citrulline.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".