A Pharmacokinetic Study of Different Quercetin Formulations in Healthy Participants: A Diet‐Controlled, Crossover, Single‐ and Multiple‐Dose Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the blood concentrations of quercetin in healthy participants after the administration of different formulations in single‐ and multiple‐dose phases. Ten healthy adults (males, 5; females, 5; age 37 ± 11 years) participated in a diet‐controlled, crossover pilot study. Participants received three different doses (250 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg) of quercetin aglycone orally. In the single‐dose study, blood concentrations (AUC 0–24 and C max ) of standard quercetin were compared with those of LipoMicel®—a food‐grade delivery form of quercetin. In the multiple‐dose study, blood concentrations of formulated quercetin were observed over 72 h, after repeated doses of LipoMicel (LM) treatments. The AUC 0–24 ranged from 77.3 to 1128.9 ng·h/ml: LM significantly increased blood concentrations of quercetin by 7‐fold (LM 500) compared to standard quercetin, when tested at the same dose, over 24 h ( p < 0.001); LM administered at a higher dose (LM 1000) achieved 15‐fold higher absorption ( p < 0.001); LM tested at half a dose of standard quercetin increased concentration by approx. 3‐fold (LM 250). Quercetin blood concentrations were attained over 72 h. The major metabolites measured in the blood were methylated, sulfate, and glutathione (GSH) conjugates of quercetin. Significant differences in concentrations between quercetin conjugates (sulfate vs. methyl vs. GSH) were observed ( p < 0.001). Data obtained from this study suggest that supplementation with LipoMicel® is a promising strategy to increase the absorption of quercetin and its health‐promoting effects in humans. However, due to the low sample size in this pilot study, further research is still warranted to confirm the observations in larger populations. This trial is registered with NCT05611827 .
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".