Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of acetyl-L-carnitine for ALS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our objective was to assess the effects of acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) with riluzole on disability and mortality of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Definite/probable ALS patients, 40-70 years of age, duration 6-24 months, self-sufficient (i.e. able to swallow, cut food/handle utensils, and walk), and with forced vital capacity (FVC) > 80% entered a pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group trial and were followed for 48 weeks. ALC or placebo 3 g/day was added to riluzole 100 mg/day. Primary endpoint: number of patients no longer self-sufficient. Secondary endpoints: changes in ALSFRS-R, MRC, FVC and McGill Quality of Life (QoL) scores. Analysis was made in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) population, completers and completers/compliers (i.e. taking > 75% of study drug). Forty-two patients received ALC and 40 placebo. In the ITT population, 34 (80.9%) patients receiving ALC and 39 (97.5%) receiving placebo became non-self-sufficient (p = 0.0296). In the PP analysis, percentages were 84.4 and 100.0% (p = 0.0538), respectively. Mean ALSFRS-R scores at 48 weeks were 33.6 (SD 10.4) and 27.6 (9.9) (p = 0.0388), respectively, and mean FVC scores 90.3 (32.6) and 58.6 (31.2) (p = 0.0158), respectively. Median survival was 45 months (ALC) and 22 months (placebo) (p = 0.0176). MRC, QoL and adverse events were similar. In conclusion, ALC may be effective, well-tolerated and safe in ALS. A pivotal phase III trial is needed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
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".