Flaxseed in Lupus Nephritis: A Two-Year Nonplacebo-Controlled Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the renoprotective effects of ground flaxseed in patients with lupus nephritis. METHODS: Forty patients with lupus nephritis were asked to participate in a randomized crossover trial of flaxseed. Twenty-three agreed and were randomized to receive 30 grams of ground flaxseed daily or control (no placebo) for one year, followed by a twelve-week washout period and the reverse treatment for one year. At baseline and six month intervals, serum phospholipids, flaxseed sachet counts, serum creatinine, 12-hour urine albumin excretion and urine albumin to creatinine ratios, serum viscosity and plasma lipids were measured. RESULTS: There were eight drop-outs and of the 15 remaining subjects flaxseed sachet count and serum phospholipid levels indicated only nine were adherent to the flaxseed diet. Plasma lipids and serum viscosity were unaltered by the flaxseed supplementation whereas serum creatinine in the compliant patients during flaxseed administration declined from a mean of 0.97+/-0.31 mg/dL to a mean of 0.94+/-0.30 mg/dL and rose in the control phase to a mean of 1.03+/-0.28 mg/dL [p value <0.08]. Of the fifteen patients who completed the study, similar changes were noted [p value <0.1]. The nine compliant patients had lower serum creatinines at the end of the two-year study than the 17 patients who refused to participate [p<0.05]. Microalbumin at baseline declined in both control and flaxseed time periods, but there was a trend for a greater decline during flaxseed administration [p<0.2]. CONCLUSIONS: Flaxseed appears to be renoprotective in lupus nephritis, but this interpretation is affected by under powering due to poor adherence and potential Hawthorne effects.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".