Glycaemic and insulinaemic impact of a diabetes-specific oral nutritional supplement with Extra-Virgin Olive Oil in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus at nutritional risk: a randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicentre clinical trial (DIACARE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Introduction: there is controversy about the usefulness of specific enteral nutrition formulas in malnourished patients with diabetes. The effects on blood glucose and other aspects of metabolic control are not fully understood in the scientific literature. Objective: the aim of the study was to compare the glycaemic and insulinaemic response of patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of malnutrition after oral feed between a diabetes-specific formula with AOVE (DSF) and a standard one (STF). Methods: A randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicentre clinical trial was conducted in patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of malnutrition (SGA). The patients were randomized to receive either DSF or STF, a week apart. A glycaemia and insulinaemia curve was made at times 0 minutes, 30 min, 60 min, 90 min, 120 min, and 180 min after the patients drank 200 ml of the oral nutritional supplement (ONS). The principal variables were the area under the curve (AUC0-t) of glucose and insulin. Results: 29 patients (51 % women) were included, who were on average 68.84 (SD 11.37) years old. Regarding the degree of malnutrition, 86.2 % presented moderate malnutrition (B) and 13.8 % severe (C). When the patients received the DSF, they had a lower mean of glucose AUC0-t (-3,325.34 mg/min/dl [95 % CI: -4,3608.34 to -2,290.07]; p = 0.016) and also a lower mean of insulin AUC0-t (-451.14 uU/min/ml [95 % CI: -875,10 to -27.17]; p = 0.038). There were no differences in the degree of malnutrition. Conclusion: compared with STF, DSF with AOVE showed a better glycaemic and insulinaemic response in patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of malnutrition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".