A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study on the Safety and Tolerability of an Iron Multi-Amino Acid Chelate Preparation in Premenopausal Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Considerable risk of iron deficiency has been identified in premenopausal women because of the adverse effects associated with commercial iron preparations. This study examined the safety and tolerability of a novel iron multi-amino acid chelate (IMAAC) preparation in premenopausal women. A single-centre, randomized, double-blind, three-arm placebo-controlled (n = 60) study was conducted where subjects received one of three test materials: IMAAC (600 mg) or ferrous sulfate (600 mg) each containing 25 mg of elemental iron, or placebo as a single daily dose for 7 days. After testing, there were no significant differences found in any of the hematological outcomes between the different test groups. The safety analyses showed that a significantly (p = .044) higher number of patients reported adverse events when taking the ferrous sulfate supplement compared to IMAAC. A significantly lower number of adverse effects (p = .008) were reported by subjects on IMAAC. The current study demonstrated the superiority of the IMAAC preparation over ferrous sulfate with regards to tolerability and adverse 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".