Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial of alpha-lipoic acid for the treatment of fibromyalgia pain: the IMPALA trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Fibromyalgia is a common and challenging chronic pain disorder with few, if any, highly effective and well-tolerated treatments. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) is a nonsedating antioxidant with evidence of efficacy in the treatment of symptomatic diabetic neuropathy that has not been evaluated in the setting of fibromyalgia treatment. Thus, we conducted a single-centre, proof-of-concept, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover trial of ALA for the treatment of fibromyalgia. Twenty-seven participants were recruited, and 24 participants completed both treatment periods of the trial. The median maximal tolerated dose of ALA in this trial was 1663 mg/day. Treatment-emergent adverse events with ALA were infrequent and not statistically different from placebo. For the primary outcome of pain intensity, and for several other validated secondary outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences between placebo and ALA. A post hoc exploratory subgroup analysis showed a significant interaction between gender and treatment with a significant favourable placebo-ALA difference in pain for men, but not for women. Overall, the results of this trial do not provide any evidence to suggest promise for ALA as an effective treatment for fibromyalgia, which is predominantly prevalent in women. This negative clinical trial represents an important step in a collective strategy to identify new, better tolerated and more effective treatments for fibromyalgia.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".