Effect of L-Carnitine in Patients With Liver Cirrhosis on Energy Metabolism Using Indirect Calorimetry: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: L-carnitine supplementation has been suggested to show several favorable effects on patients with liver cirrhosis (LC). However, there have been no reports regarding the effect of L-carnitine on energy metabolism in patients with LC using indirect calorimetry which is a well-established method for assessing the degree of liver malnutrition. We examined the effect of L-carnitine in patients with LC on energy metabolism using indirect calorimetry. METHODS: A total of 13 LC patients who are scheduled to be treated with L-carnitine (1,800 mg/day) were analyzed in this study. None of the patients previously received L-carnitine. An evaluation of the nutritional status was performed at the initiation of L-carnitine therapy and after 4 weeks of L-carnitine therapy. We evaluated the effect of L-carnitine on the nutritional status and energy metabolism by comparing various clinical variables at these two time points. In addition, the changes in the nutritional status of the patients were also evaluated using indirect calorimetry. RESULTS: After 4 weeks of L-carnitine treatment, for all cases, the mean substrate oxidation rates of carbohydrate (%C) increased from 37.6% to 48.2%, the mean substrate oxidation rates of fat (%F) decreased from 40.2% to 31.9% and the mean substrate oxidation rates of protein (%P) decreased from 22.2% to 19.9%. In a subgroup analysis of patients with baseline non-protein respiratory quotient (npRQ) < 0.85, the mean %C increased from 15.3% to 34.2%, the mean %F decreased from 59.9% to 45.1%, and the mean %P decreased from 24.8% to 20.6%. After 4 weeks of L-carnitine treatment, for all cases (n = 13), the mean value of npRQ increased in comparison with the baseline levels, although the difference was not significant (0.868 ± 0.060 vs. 0.838 ± 0.097, P = 0.19). Conversely, in patients with baseline npRQ < 0.85, the npRQ value significantly increased after 4 weeks treatment of L-carnitine compared with the baseline levels (0.827 ± 0.030 vs. 0.760 ± 0.043, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: L-carnitine supplementation can be useful for improving energy metabolism, especially in patients who have an advanced LC status and lower baseline npRQ values.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".