What Is Really in This Weight Loss Supplement?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A previously healthy 55-year-old woman with no history of kidney disease presented for a routine physical examination and was found to havenephrotic-range proteinuria of approximately 6 g/day. For the past year, the patient and her 50-year-old sister had been taking a weight loss supplement (MetaSwitchTM) they purchased online. The younger sister was found to have nephrotic syndrome, and subsequent kidney biopsies from both sisters were consistent with membranous nephropathy (MN). This disease can be idiopathic in nature or it can occur secondary to a wide range of etiologies, such as autoimmunity and toxin exposure (1); however, familial variants are exceedingly rare. The proteinuria gradually resolved in both sisters within 6 months of ceasing the intake of the supplements; this result raises strong suspicion of a nephrotoxic agent in the supplement. The claimed contents of the supplement were unremarkable in terms of ingredients with overt nephrotoxic potential: α lipoic acid, ginseng,citrulline, leucine, d-ribose-l-cysteine, potassium, and vitamins [vitamin D2, B1 (thiamine), B5 (pantetheine), B6, B12]. The laboratory was contacted to further investigate this case of suspected supplement contamination after common causes of MN were ruled out with extensive studies including serum and urine protein electrophoresis, antinuclear antibody and infectious disease screens, complement levels, and age-appropriate malignancy screens. Supplement capsules were …
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".