MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412085805 · doi:10.3390/pharmaceutics17070880

Novel Micellar Formulation of Silymarin (Milk Thistle) with Enhanced Bioavailability in a Double-Blind, Randomized, Crossover Human Trial

2025· article· en· W4412085805 on OpenAlexafffund
Chuck Chang, Yiming Zhang, Yun Chai Kuo, Min Du, Kyle Roh, Roland J. Gahler, Afoke Ibi, Julia Solnier

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmaceutics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSilymarin and Mushroom Poisoning
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Indigenous Peoples' Health
FundersWestern Economic Diversification CanadaBritish Columbia Knowledge Development FundSimon Fraser University
KeywordsSilybum marianumMilk ThistleBioavailabilityCmaxCrossover studyPharmacokineticsTolerabilityPharmacologyChemistryCminMedicineAdverse effectChromatographyPlaceboTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Silymarin, a flavonoid complex, and the main bioactive component of milk thistle (Silybum marianum), is known for its hepatoprotective properties but suffers from poor bioavailability due to its low solubility and extensive first-pass metabolism. Method: This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of a novel micellar milk thistle formulation designed to enhance silymarin absorption, compared to an unformulated/standard milk thistle product, in a small-scale human bioavailability trial. In a randomized, double-blinded, crossover study, 16 healthy participants received a single dose of either the micellar formulation (LipoMicel Milk Thistle; LMM) or the standard formulation (STD) at a total daily dose of 130 mg silymarin. Blood concentrations were measured over 24 h, and key pharmacokinetic parameters—maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), time to reach maximum concentration (Tmax), and area under the curve (AUC)—were calculated. Tolerability and safety were assessed through adverse event monitoring during the study period. Results: Results demonstrated a significant increase in bioavailability with the micellar formulation, with 18.9-fold higher Cmax (95% CI: 1.9–30.7 ng/mL vs. 74.4–288.3 ng/mL; p = 0.007) and 11.4-fold higher AUC0–24 (95% CI: 7.40–113.5 ng·h/mL vs. 178–612.5 ng·h/mL; p = 0.015). Tmax was 0.5 (95% CI: 0.5–4.0) hours for the micellar formulation versus 2.5 (95% CI: 0.5–8.0) hours for the standard product (p = 0.015) indicating faster absorption of LMM. The standard formulation exhibited a significantly longer mean residence time compared to the LMM formulation (95% CI: 4.4–7.5 h vs. 2.8–4.2 h; p = 0.015). Conclusions: No adverse events or significant safety concerns were observed in either group. Compared to the standard, the micellar formulation showed superior pharmacokinetic outcomes, suggesting it may enhance silymarin’s clinical efficacy in liver health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmaceuticsSame topicSilymarin and Mushroom PoisoningFrench-language works237,207