98%
921
2 minutes
20
The glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL) of a single food item has been used to monitor blood glucose level. However, concerns regarding the clinical relevance of the GI or GL have been raised on their applicability to a combination of several foods consumed as meal. This study aimed to investigate the glycemic response after consuming commercially purchased ready-to-eat meal and to develop the GL prediction formula using the composition of nutrients in each meal. Glycemic responses were measured in healthy adults with various mixed meals comprising approximately 25 g, 50 g, and 75 g of carbohydrates. After fasting, participants consumed test meals, and the glycemic response was measured for a subsequent 120 min. The GI and GL values for mixed meals were calculated as area under curve for each participant. For the prediction formula, 70 mixed meals were analyzed, of which the GI and GL values of 64 participants were used. The prediction formula produced was as follows: GL = 19.27 + (0.39 × available carbohydrate) - (0.21 × fat) - (0.01 × protein) - (0.01 × fiber). We hope that this prediction formula can be used as a useful tool to estimate the GL after consuming ready-to-eat meals.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8625555 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10112626 | DOI Listing |
J Refract Surg
September 2025
Purpose: To compare postoperative vault measurements between horizontal and vertical fixation of the Implantable Collamer Lens (ICL) (KS-AquaPORT; STAAR Surgical) when its size is determined using the KS formula.
Methods: This retrospective study analyzed 2,343 eyes from 1,275 patients who underwent myopic ICL implantation. Pre-operative anterior segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT) (CASIA 2; Tomey Corporation) was performed in both horizontal and vertical orientations.
J Refract Surg
September 2025
From the Department of Ophthalmology, Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany and.
Purpose: To evaluate intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation of a non-diffractive extended depth of focus (EDOF) IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) without historical data.
Methods: In this consecutive case series, patients who had undergone lens surgery with implantation of a non-diffractive EDOF IOL after myopic laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) at the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany, were included. Preoperative assessments included biometry and tomography using Scheimpflug technology (Pentacam; Oculus Optikgeräte GmbH).
J Refract Surg
September 2025
From the Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Milan, Italy.
Purpose: To determine the accuracy of a new machine learning-based open-source IOL formula (PEARLS-DGS) in 100 patients who underwent uncomplicated cataract surgery and had a history of laser refractive surgery for myopic defects.
Methods: The setting for this retrospective study was HUMANITAS Research Hospital, Milan, Italy. Data from 100 patients with a history of photorefractive keratectomy or laser in situ keratomileusis were retrospectively analyzed to assess the accuracy of the formula.
J Refract Surg
September 2025
From Qvision, Department of Ophthalmology of VITHAS Almería Hospital, Almería, Spain.
Purpose: To assess differences in intraocular lens (IOL) power calculation prediction error (PE) considering the manufacturing tolerance or exact power (EP) versus labeled power (LP), and to compare accuracy using the Barrett formula with optimized constant versus a thick-lens formula.
Methods: The PE and absolute PE were calculated for a random eye of patients implanted with the multifocal Liberty Q-Flex 640PM IOL (Medicontur Ltd) considering the LP and the EP provided by the manufacturer. The outcomes for the Barrett with optimized constant formula and a thick-lens formula personalized for the surgeon, biometer, and IOL were compared.
Am J Ophthalmol
September 2025
Dean McGee Eye Institute, University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA. Electronic address:
Purpose: To compare refractive prediction accuracy using simulated keratometry (SimK) measurements obtained from a Scheimpflug tomographer (Pentacam AXL, Oculus) versus keratometry (K) measurements obtained from an optical biometer utilizing telecentric keratometry (IOLMaster 700 (IOLM700), Carl Zeiss Meditec AG) applied to modern IOL power calculation formulas.
Design: Retrospective accuracy and validity analysis METHODS: Setting: Private practice center STUDY POPULATION: Five hundred eighty-nine eyes with preoperative SimK and K measurements undergoing phacoemulsification and implantation of monofocal IOL (Clareon SY60WF IOL, Alcon Laboratories, Inc.).