Evaluation of plant sterol and cholesterol absorption in overweight, hypercholesterolemic men with high and low baseline circulating plant sterol concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Profiles for plant sterol (PS) absorption and their blood baseline levels, as well as the relationship with cholesterol (C) absorption and biosynthesis, have not been clearly described. Our study aim was to assess the absorption of PS and C within and between the phases of PS interventions using a single isotope ratio method over the total sterol (PS +C) pool in RBC. Eighty two hypercholesterolemic men with high (HPS) or low (LPS) baseline blood PS levels completed a crossover study including a placebo and PS‐enriched spread (1.8g/d). Either D 7 ‐campesterol or D 7 ‐sitosterol, and 13C 2 ‐cholesterol were used as dietary tracer to assess PS and C absorption. Results showed that C absorption was positively correlated to campesterol ( r = 0.63, p < 0.01) and sitosterol ( r = 0.42, p < 0.01) absorption and negatively to free C fractional synthesis rate (FSR) ( r = −0.38, p < 0.01). At endpoints of both phases, C FSR values in HPS were correlated with plasma T‐C ( r = 0.35, p < 0.01), LDL‐C ( r = 0.20, p = 0.076) and TG ( r = 0.43, p < 0.01), such correlations were not seen in LPS. Following PS intake, the PS and C absorption was reduced ( p < 0.01) by 38.8 ± 2.9 % and 33.6 ± 2.2 % (vs control), respectively, whereas C FSR increased ( p < 0.01) by 33.3 ± 3.6 %. Results address the importance of baseline blood PS in terms of affecting sterol (PS and C) absorption and C biosynthesis, and its association with the efficacy of PS intervention. (Funded by Unilever R&D).
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".