Characterization and Pharmacokinetic Assessment of a New Berberine Formulation with Enhanced Absorption In Vitro and in Human Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Berberine is a plant-origin quaternary isoquinoline alkaloid with a vast array of biological activities, including antioxidant and blood-glucose- and blood-lipid-lowering effects. However, its therapeutic potential is largely limited by its poor oral bioavailability. The aim of this study was to investigate the in vitro solubility and Caco-2 cell permeability followed by pharmacokinetic profiling in healthy volunteers of a new food-grade berberine delivery system (i.e., Berberine LipoMicel®). X-ray diffractometry (XRD), in vitro solubility, and Caco-2 cell permeability indicated higher bioavailability of LipoMicel Berberine (LMB) compared to the standard formulation. Increased aqueous solubility (up to 1.4-fold), as well as improved Caco-2 cell permeability of LMB (7.18 × 10−5 ± 7.89 × 10−6 cm/s), were observed when compared to standard/unformulated berberine (4.93 × 10−6 ± 4.28 × 10−7 cm/s). Demonstrating better uptake, LMB achieved significant increases in AUC0–24 and Cmax compared to the standard formulation (AUC: 78.2 ± 14.4 ng h/mL vs. 13.4 ± 1.97 ng h/mL, respectively; p < 0.05; Cmax: 15.8 ± 2.6 ng/mL vs. 1.67 ± 0.41 ng/mL) in a pilot study of healthy volunteers (n = 10). No adverse reactions were reported during the study period. In conclusion, LMB presents a highly bioavailable formula with superior absorption (up to six-fold) compared to standard berberine formulation and may, therefore, have the potential to improve the therapeutic efficacy of berberine. The study has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with Identifier NCT05370261.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".