Enhanced Oral Bioavailability of Lutein and Zeaxanthin via a Self-Emulsifying Delivery System: A Randomized, Double-Blind Cross-Over Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to evaluate and verify the improved bioavailability, as determined by the plasma concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin, of the test supplement, XanMax® 2002 plus LuZeAbility™, as compared to the reference supplement, XanMax® 2002. For this purpose, this study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, two-group, two-period cross-over clinical trial research. A total of 24 male subjects participated in the clinical trial. They were randomized 1:1 into group 1 or 2 to consume two types of supplements in two separate periods. This study aimed to propose and demonstrate that the bioavailability and the plasma concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin in the test supplement were significantly higher (110-132.8%) than in the reference supplement in all consecutive periods, such as 12 to 72 h after intake and at the time of maximum concentration. These results are expected to strengthen macular pigment optical density levels, ultimately providing a safe and effective intervention for comprehensively promoting eye health. Therefore, the findings of this study have significant pharmacokinetic implications and offer valid theoretical and practical insights for both academic research and the industrial development in the supplement market.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".