Exploratory Open Label, Randomized Study of Acetyl- and Propionylcarnitine in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We compared the effects of acetylcarnitine, propionylcarnitine and both compounds on the symptoms of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). METHODS: In an open, randomized fashion we compared 2 g/d acetyl-L-carnitine, 2 g/d propionyl-L-carnitine, and its combination in 3 groups of 30 CFS patients during 24 weeks. Effects were rated by clinical global impression of change. Secondary endpoints were the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, McGill Pain Questionnaire, and the Stroop attention concentration test. Scores were assessed 8 weeks before treatment; at randomization; after 8, 16, and 24 weeks of treatment; and 2 weeks later. RESULTS: Clinical global impression of change after treatment showed considerable improvement in 59% of the patients in the acetylcarnitine group and 63% in the propionylcarnitine group, but less in the acetylcarnitine plus propionylcarnitine group (37%). Acetylcarnitine significantly improved mental fatigue (p =.015) and propionylcarnitine improved general fatigue (p =.004). Attention concentration improved in all groups, whereas pain complaints did not decrease in any group. Two weeks after treatment, worsening of fatigue was experienced by 52%, 50%, and 37% in the acetylcarnitine, propionylcarnitine, and combined group, respectively. In the acetylcarnitine group, but not in the other groups, the changes in plasma carnitine levels correlated with clinical improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Acetylcarnitine and propionylcarnitine showed beneficial effect on fatigue and attention concentration. Less improvement was found by the combined treatment. Acetylcarnitine had main effect on mental fatigue and propionylcarnitine on general fatigue.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".