MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791185607 · doi:10.2196/resprot.8655

Treatment with Creatine Monohydrate in Spinal and Bulbar Muscular Atrophy: Protocol for a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2791185607 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yasuhiro Hijikata, Masahisa Katsuno, Keisuke Suzuki, Atsushi Hashizume, Amane Araki, Shinichiro Yamada, Tomonori Inagaki, Daisuke Ito, Akihiro Hirakawa, Fumie Kinoshita, Masahiko Gosho, Gen Sobue

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyDaiichi Sankyo EuropeJapan Science and Technology AgencyJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceDaiichi Sankyo Foundation of Life Science
KeywordsSpinal and bulbar muscular atrophyMedicineSpinal muscular atrophyAtrophyMotor neuronPlaceboCreatinePhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationDiseaseWeaknessSkeletal muscleNeuromuscular diseaseInternal medicinePathologyAnatomyAlternative medicineProstate cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although spinal and bulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) has been classified as a motor neuron disease, several reports have indicated the primary involvement of skeletal muscle in the pathogenesis of this devastating disease. Recent studies reported decreased intramuscular creatine levels in skeletal muscles in both patients with SBMA and transgenic mouse models of SBMA, which appears to contribute to muscle weakness. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of oral creatine supplementation to improve motor function in patients with SBMA. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, three-armed clinical trial was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of creatine therapy in patients with SBMA. Patients with SBMA eligible for this study were assigned randomly in a 1:1:1 ratio to each group of placebo, 10 g, or 15 g daily dose of creatine monohydrate in a double-blind fashion. Participants took creatine or placebo orally 3 times a day for 8 weeks. Outcome measurements were results of neurological assessments, examinations, and questionnaires collected at baseline and at weeks 4, 8, and 16 after a washout period. The primary endpoint was the change in handgrip strength values from baseline to week 8. The secondary endpoints included the following: results of maximum voluntary isometric contraction tests of extremities; tongue pressure; results of the 15-foot timed walk test and the rise from bed test; modified quantitative myasthenia gravis score; respiratory function test results; activities of daily living assessed with the Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale and the Spinal and Bulbar Muscular Atrophy Functional Rating Scale; skeletal muscle mass measured with dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry; urinary 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine levels; and questionnaires examining the quality of life, swallowing function, and fatigue. RESULTS: Participant enrollment in the trial started from June 2014 and follow-up was completed in July 2015. The study is currently being analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first clinical trial evaluating creatine therapy in SBMA. Given that creatine serves as an energy source in skeletal muscles, recovery of intramuscular creatine concentration is expected to improve muscle strength. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry UMIN000012503; https://upload.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000014611 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6xOlbPkg3).

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.009

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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.536
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research ProtocolsSame topicAmyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis ResearchFrench-language works237,207