Efficacy of the Synbiotic Supplementation on the Metabolic Factors in Patients with Metabolic Syndrome: A Randomized, Triple‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Metabolic syndrome is overwhelmingly increasing and is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disorder, so effective treatment strategies are considered high priority. This study aimed to determine the effects of synbiotic supplementation on metabolic factors in patients with metabolic syndrome. Methods: In this triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial, 108 participants were divided into two groups to receive synbiotic supplementation or placebo for 12 weeks. All participants were also educated about maintaining a healthy lifestyle and consuming low-calorie nutritious meals, along with dietary intake and physical activity monitoring. Anthropometric measures, blood pressure, glycemic indices, lipid profile, hepatic enzymes, and hs-CRP were evaluated at the baseline and end of the trial. Results: =0.007], but there was no difference between groups in other metabolic factors. Conclusions: These findings suggest that synbiotic supplementation while following a healthy lifestyle and nutrition improved FBG in patients with metabolic syndrome.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".