The Effect of Creatine Supplementation on Muscle Function in Childhood Myositis: A Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the feasibility of studying creatine in juvenile dermatomyositis (JDM). Secondary objectives were to determine the effect of creatine on muscle function and metabolism, aerobic capacity, fatigue, physical activity, and quality of life (QOL), as well as its safety. Methods. We conducted a 6-month, double-blind, randomized, multiple-baseline design; patients were assigned to creatine or placebo. Feasibility was assessed using attended study visits, completed study procedures, and adherence. Muscle function, aerobic capacity, and muscle strength were assessed with standardized exercise tests. Muscle metabolism was assessed using a 31-Phosphorus Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy protocol. Fatigue, physical activity, and QOL were assessed by questionnaires. Statistical significance was estimated using a randomization (permutation) test. Changes in outcome measures taken at baseline and end-of-study were calculated using paired t-tests. Results. Median (range) adherence to the study drug was 88.5% (20.5–95.5%) and the proportion of subjects with 80% adherence or higher was 76.9%. There were no missed study visits. There were no statistically significant changes in muscle function, strength, aerobic capacity, disease activity, fatigue, physical activity, or QOL while subjects were receiving creatine compared to placebo. There were statistically significant adaptations in muscle metabolism (e.g., decrease in change in muscle pH following exercise, and decrease in phosphate/phosphocreatine ratio) at the end-of-study compared to baseline. There were no significant adverse effects. Conclusion. Creatine supplementation in children with JDM is feasible to study, and is safe and well-tolerated; it may lead to improvements in muscle metabolism.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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".