Glycaemic and insulinaemic responses to a new hydrogenated starch hydrolysate in healthy and type 2 diabetic subjects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Industrialists are searching for a sugar replacement in confectioneries such as hard candies, gum and chocolate. Lycasin HBC is a suitable candidate. Nevertheless, no information on its plasma glucose and insulin responses exists. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the glycaemic and insulinaemic indices of Lycasin HBC in healthy subjects and in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Six healthy and six type 2 diabetic men participated in the study. Each subject absorbed, after an overnight fast, a challenge of either 50 g of glucose or 50 g of Lycasin HBC using a randomised double-blind crossover design. Blood samples for measuring plasma glucose and insulin concentrations were collected during a 3 hour period. RESULTS: The calculated glycaemic index of Lycasin HBC was 47 +/- 10% in healthy subjects and 25 +/- 6% in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The insulinaemic index of Lycasin HBC was 23 +/- 4% and 39 +/- 14%, respectively. As glucose levels oscillate in a very limited range in normal healthy subjects, the insulinaemic index must be considered here. On the other hand, it is the glycaemic rather than the insulinaemic index that must be assessed in diabetic subjects due to impairment of insulin secretion. CONCLUSIONS: The tested Lycasin HBC showed a low insulinaemic index in healthy subjects (23 +/- 4%) and a low glycaemic index (25 +/- 6%) in type 2 diabetic patients. Thus, it might be considered as an interesting sucrose substitute in confectionery for individuals with or without diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".