Daily Fatigue—reducing Effect of Astaxanthin―A Randomized, Placebo—controlled, Double—blind, Parallel—group Study―
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the effects of astaxanthin on the sense of fatigue occurring in daily life and to investigate the relationship of the fatigue-reducing effect with the antioxidative potential. Method A 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted. After screening for eligibility, 39 subjects with fatigue were assigned to 2 groups. The astaxanthin group received 12 mg of astaxanthin and 20 mg of tocotrienol, while the control group received 20 mg of tocotrienol alone. All subjects took Uchida-Kraepelin performance tests as mental loading and cycled using a bicycle ergometer as physical loading in Weeks 0, 4 and 8. A visual analog scale（VAS）of perceived fatigue was performed before and after loading. In Weeks 0 and 8, a Profile of Mood States（POMS）questionnaire was performed. The biological antioxidant potential（BAP）was measured with blood samples taken at the screening and in Week 12. Results Thirty-eight subjects completed the study. Intent-to-treat（ITT）analysis revealed that the sense of fatigue after both physical and mental loading was significantly lower in the astaxanthin group than in the control group in Week 8. The change in Friendliness in POMS was significantly higher in the astaxanthin group than in the control group in Week 8. No significant differences were observed in the change rate in the BAP value in Week 12 between the astaxanthin group and control group. Conclusion Astaxanthin reduced the daily sense of fatigue caused by both mental and physical loads. No increase in BAP was, however, observed in subjects receiving astaxanthin.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".