MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential efficacy of methylcobalamin and alpha-lipoic acid treatment on symptoms of diabetic peripheral neuropathy

2018· article· en· W2560113087 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerva Endocrinology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiochemical Acid Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral neuropathyVisual analogue scaleMalondialdehydeInternal medicineMethylcobalaminOxidative stressPeripheralAnesthesiaGastroenterologyDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Diabetic hyperglycemia damages peripheral nerves by triggering ischemia, oxidative stress, and inflammation. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) and methylcobalamin (MC) are known to improve signs of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), possibly by enhancing neural and vascular endothelial cell metabolism and antioxidant capacity. We evaluated differences in efficacy following short-term MC or ALA treatment on DPN symptoms to guide clinical drug selection. METHODS: Forty DPN patients were randomly divided into MC and ALA treatment groups (both N.=20) and assessed by the Toronto Clinical Neuropathy Scoring System (TCSS), total symptom score (TSS), visual analog scale (VAS) of positive symptoms, and easy sensory test (EST) for negative symptoms before and after 2 weeks of treatment. Serum malondialdehyde (MDA) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) were also measured. RESULTS: Neuropathy as measured by TCSS, TSS, and VAS scores was significantly reduced by both treatments (P<0.05) but magnitude varied by symptom. The VAS score reductions for burning and pain were significantly greater following ALA (P<0.01), while MC reduced numbness and paresthesia VAS scores to a slightly greater extent than ALA (P>0.05). Numbers of abnormal (low-response) points for pressure and pinprick sensation were reduced by MC but not by ALA, while both treatments induced a significant reduction in vibratory perception threshold (P<0.01). Neither MC nor ALA improved temperature sensation or tendon reflexes (P>0.05). Alpha-lipoic acid, increased SOD and reduced MDA (P<0.05), indicating enhanced antioxidant capacity, while MC had no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Due to differences in efficacy, MC or ALA should be chosen according to the symptoms of individual patients.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it