A randomized trial of coenzyme Q<sub>10</sub> in mitochondrial disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Case reports and open-label studies suggest that coenzyme Q(10) (CoQ(10)) treatment may have beneficial effects in mitochondrial disease patients; however, controlled trials are warranted to clinically prove its effectiveness. Thirty patients with mitochondrial cytopathy received 1200 mg/day CoQ(10) for 60 days in a randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial. Blood lactate, urinary markers of oxidative stress, body composition, activities of daily living, quality of life, forearm handgrip strength and oxygen desaturation, cycle exercise cardiorespiratory variables, and brain metabolites were measured. CoQ(10) treatment attenuated the rise in lactate after cycle ergometry, increased (∽1.93 ml) VO(2)/kg lean mass after 5 minutes of cycling (P < 0.005), and decreased gray matter choline-containing compounds (P < 0.05). Sixty days of moderate- to high-dose CoQ(10) treatment had minor effects on cycle exercise aerobic capacity and post-exercise lactate but did not affect other clinically relevant variables such as strength or resting lactate.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".