MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887195419 · doi:10.1038/s41514-018-0027-1

Author Correction: Repeat dose NRPT (nicotinamide riboside and pterostilbene) increases NAD+ levels in humans safely and sustainably: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

2018· erratum· en· W2887195419 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan W. Dellinger, Santiago Roel Santos, Mark Morris, Malkanthi Evans, Dan Alminana, Leonard Guarente, Eric Marcotulli

Bibliographic record

Venuenpj Aging and Mechanisms of Disease · 2018
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMitochondrial Function and Pathology
Canadian institutionsKGK Synergize (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPterostilbeneNAD+ kinasePlaceboRandomized controlled trialDouble blindNicotinamideMedicinePharmacologyInternal medicineChemistryBiochemistryResveratrolAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The original version of the published Article contained an incorrect citation for reference 20 “Hubbard, B. P. & Sinclair, D. A. Measurement of sirtuin enzyme activity using a substrate-agnostic fluorometric nicotinamide assay. Methods Mol. Biol. 1077, 167–177 (2013).” The citation for reference 20 has been changed to “Cheng, Y. et al. SIRT1 activation by pterostilbene attenuates the skeletal muscle oxidative stress injury and mitochondrial dysfunction induced by ischemia reperfusion injury. Apoptosis 21 (8), 905-916 (2016)”. The original version of the published Article did not list a source for the placebo pills or the investigational product NRPT in the Intervention section of Methods. The last sentence of the Intervention section of Methods now lists the source for the placebo pills and the investigational product NRPT as follows: “The matched placebo pills and the investigational product (NRPT) were provided by Elysium Health (New York, NY)”. This has now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.013

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuenpj Aging and Mechanisms of DiseaseSame topicMitochondrial Function and PathologyFrench-language works237,207