Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of acetyl-L-carnitine for ALS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it