Impact of Energy Drinks on Androgen Deprivation–Induced Fatigue: Results of a Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: A large proportion of men treated with luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonist suffer from fatigue. Energy drinks were developed for use during periods of increased mental and physical exertion. This study evaluated whether energy drinks would alleviate fatigue in men treated with LHRH agonist for a period of at least 6 months. Methods: A single-center, phase II, open-label trial was performed in which men with LHRH agonist–related fatigue were given two cans of Red Bull® Sugar-Free energy drink daily for a period of 4 weeks. Fatigue levels were evaluated using the Bruera global fatigue severity scale, while quality of life was evaluated using the RAND 36-Item Health Survey 1.0 (SF-36). Improvement was compared using a paired t-test. Results: Twenty men were recruited to participate in the trial. Of these, 19 were randomized. During the course of the trial, one participant dropped out before the end of the trial due to an adverse event. After a 4 week treatment period, the average fatigue levels were significantly improved (p=0.001) in comparison to baseline levels: from a score of 6 (IQR 3–8) to a score of 3.1 (±2.1). In the SF-36 survey, the vitality domain, an assessment of energy and fatigue, was significantly improved at week 4 (p=0.006). Conclusion: Energy drinks appear to have a significant effect on fatigue level and on quality of life in men treated with LHRH agonist for prostate cancer. In addition, on short-term follow-up, they appear to be safe and well tolerated. Randomized placebo-controlled trials will be required to validate these findings.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".