Creatine monohydrate supplementation does not increase muscle strength, lean body mass, or muscle phosphocreatine in patients with myotonic dystrophy type 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creatine monohydrate (CrM) supplementation may increase strength in some types of muscular dystrophy. A recent study in myotonic muscular dystrophy type 1 (DM1) did not find a significant treatment effect, but measurements of muscle phosphocreatine (PCr) were not performed. We completed a randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial using 34 genetically confirmed adult DM1 patients without significant cognitive impairment. Participants received CrM (5 g, approximately 0.074 g/kg daily) and a placebo for each 4-month phase with a 6-week wash-out. Spirometry, manual muscle testing, quantitative isometric strength testing of handgrip, foot dorsiflexion, and knee extension, handgrip and foot dorsiflexion endurance, functional tasks, activity of daily living scales, body composition (total, bone, and fat-free mass), serum creatine kinase activity, serum creatinine concentration and clearance, and liver function tests were completed before and after each intervention, and muscle PCr/beta-adenosine triphosphate (ATP) ratios of the forearm flexor muscles were completed at the end of each phase. CrM supplementation did not increase any of the outcome measurements except for plasma creatinine concentration (but not creatinine clearance). Thus, CrM supplementation at 5 g daily does not have any effects on muscle strength, body composition, or activities of daily living in patients with DM1, perhaps because of a failure of the supplementation to increase muscle PCr/beta-ATP content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".