Organoleptic evaluation of a diabetic-specific oral nutritional supplement with extra virgin olive oil in patients at nutritional risk and type 2 diabetes mellitus: Double-blind, randomized, crossover and multicenter clinical trial (DIACARE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Introduction: oral nutritional supplements specific for diabetes (DSF) usually have a composition that favors their palatability and simultaneous glycemic and metabolic control. Objetive: to compare the sensory acceptability of a DSF with respect to a standard oral nutritional supplement (STF) in patients at risk of malnutrition with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Method: randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicenter, controlled, double-blind clinical trial. Odor, taste and perceived texture of a DSF and a STD were evaluated using a scale of 1 to 4. Results: twenty-nine patients were recruited and 58 organoleptic evaluations of the supplements were registered. A better evaluation of DSF was observed with respect to STD, although no statistically significant differences were reached: odor, 0.04 (CI 95 %) -0.49 to 0.56 (p = 0.092); taste, 0.14 (CI 95 %), -0.35 to 0.63 (p = 0.561); texture, 0.14 (CI 95 %), -0.43 to 0.72 (p = 0.619). No differences were found when analyzed by order of randomization, sex, degree of malnutrition, greater or lesser degree of complexity, greater or lesser time of evolution of diabetes, or by being older or younger. Conclusions: the specific nutritional supplement for diabetic patients formulated with extra virgin olive oil, EPA and DHA, a specific mixture of carbohydrates, and fiber, presented an adequate sensory acceptance by malnourished patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".