Appetite sensation improvement by synbiotic supplementation in patients with metabolic syndrome: A randomized controlled clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The potential link between dysbiosis, features of metabolic syndrome (MetS), inflammation, and sensation impairment has been recently recognized. However, in this context, there are few indications available regarding the effects of co‐supplementation with Bacillus indicus , Bacillus coagulans , and fructooligosaccharide (FOS) prebiotics on patients with MetS. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the effects of synbiotic supplementation on glycemic indices, inflammatory biomarkers, and appetite among adults with MetS. This study is a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled clinical trial conducted in the Endocrine and Metabolism Research Center outpatient clinic in Isfahan, Iran. Fifty‐eight MetS patients were randomly assigned to receive either synbiotics ( n = 29) or placebo ( n = 29) supplementation twice per day for 8 weeks. Finally, 55 patients were recruited for analyses (28 in the intervention group and 27 in the placebo group). Random permuted blocks and a computer‐generated random number table were used for treatment allocation. No adverse effects were reported during the study. There were no significant differences in glycemic indices and inflammatory markers within‐ and between groups (all p > .05). However, a significant increase in the sensation of fullness was documented in the synbiotic group. In conclusion, the eight‐week treatment did not improve glycemic control and inflammatory markers. Nevertheless, it demonstrated potential efficacy in enhancing participants' appetite sensations, warranting further evaluation in longer intervention periods during future clinical trials.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".