A randomized, double-blind trial on the bioavailability of two CoQ10 formulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bioavailability of a single, 100 mg, dose of reduced Coenzyme Q10 (CoQH-CF) and Coenzyme Q10 formulation was compared in individuals of >60 years. Significantly higher ( P < 0.001) plasma concentrations were demonstrated for the CoQH-CF formulation at 5, 6, 8, 12, 24, 48 and 72 h post-dose compared to the CoQ10 formulation. The area under the curve (AUC) of reduced and total Coenzyme Q10 was significantly higher ( P < 0.001) in subjects administered CoQH-CF resulting in 4.3-fold higher plasma AUC 0–72 h (430% increase) in subjects receiving CoQH-CF compared to subjects receiving Coenzyme Q10. Oxidized Coenzyme Q10 in plasma was higher ( P < 0.001) in subjects receiving CoQH-CF compared to subjects receiving Coenzyme Q10 resulting in a 3.3-fold higher plasma AUC 0–72 h (329% increase). Total CoQ10 reached maximum plasma concentrations 15.5 ± 19.6 h after supplementation with CoQH-CF and 26.5 ± 25.8 h after supplementation with Coenzyme Q10, respectively. Thus, reduced Coenzyme Q10 liquid soft gel formulation was found to be superior to the commercial formulation of Coenzyme Q10 for bioavailability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".