MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Trial on the Use of Acetyl-L-Carnitine for the Treatment of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (P04.151)

2012· article· en· W1992546355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ettore Beghi, Italian ALS Study Group

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisPlaceboMedicineDouble blindPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicinePharmacologyPathologyAlternative medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To assess superiority of acetyl-L-carnitine/riluzole (ALC) combination over riluzole alone on functional disability in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Background ALS is a fatal motorneuron disease. Unlike riluzole, no disease-modifier drugs are available. ALC counteracts motor neuron death induced by toxic agents or deprivation of trophic factors and reduces disease progression in animal models. Design/Methods: Patients 40-70 years with definite or probable ALS, disease duration 6-24 months, self-supporting (ie, able to swallow, cut foods/handling utensils, and walk), and with forced vital capacity (FVC)>80% were enrolled in a pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial and followed for 48 weeks. ALC 3g/day and placebo were added to riluzole 100mg/day. Primary end-point: no. patients becoming non self-supporting. Secondary end-points: changes in the ALS-FRS-R scale, MRC scale, FVC and McGill quality-of-life scale. Analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, completers and completers/ compliers (ie, taking >75% of study drug). Results: 42 patients received ALC and 40 patients placebo. In the ITT population, 34 patients receiving ALC (80.9%) and 39 receiving placebo (97.5%) became non self-supporting (p=0.030). Percentages in study completers were 71.4 vs. 94.7% (p=0.064) and in "completers/compliers", 71.4% vs. 94.4% (p=0.069). In the per-protocol analysis, percentages were 84.4 vs. 100.0% (p=0.054) and 76.2 vs. 100.0% (p=0.132)(completers & completers/compliers). At 48 weeks, ALC was associated with higher mean ALR-FRS-R scores (p=0.039) and FVC scores (p=0.016), while MRC and quality of life were no different. Adverse events were similar. Conclusions: ALC appears superior to placebo and is well-tolerated and safe. A confirmatory phase III trial is needed. (*) Italian ALS Study Group: Virginio Bonito, Paolo Buzzi, Claudia Caponnetto, Adriano Chiò, Massimo Corbo, Fabio Giannini, Maurizio Inghilleri, Vincenzo La Bella, Lorenzo Lorusso, Christian Lunetta, Letizia Mazzini, Paolo Messina, Gabriele Mora, Michele Perini, Elisabetta Pupillo, Maria Lidia Quadrelli, Vincenzo Silani, Isabella Simone, Lucio Tremolizzo.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.243
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurology→Same topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research→French-language works237,207→