Evaluation of the effect of intravenous l-carnitine on quality of life in chronic hemodialysis patients.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of l-carnitine on quality of life (QOL) in chronic hemodialysis patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This trial used a randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover design. Inclusion criteria were patients who were older than 18 years, had been on dialysis for a minimum of one year, and had at least two of the following symptoms: intradialytic hypotension, muscle cramping, lack of energy, muscle weakness or myopathy, cardiomyopathy, or lack of responsiveness to erythropoietin (EPO). Patients were excluded if they were mentally incompetent to complete a QOL questionnaire. Sixteen patients were randomized to receive either l-carnitine (20 mg/kg) or placebo (normal saline) after each dialysis session for 12 weeks, followed by a 6-week washout, then the crossover therapy for 12 weeks. The Kidney Dialysis Questionnaire was the assessment tool used to evaluate QOL. RESULTS: There was no significant effect of l-carnitine on QOL irrespective of treatment order. There were also no differences found in any of the secondary outcomes including incidence of muscle cramping, intradialytic hypotension, EPO requirements or hemoglobin. Adverse effects consisted of gastrointestinal symptoms, with a similar incidence between l-carnitine and placebo. CONCLUSION: L-carnitine did not have a benefit on QOL in our patient population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".