Women have higher levels of CoQ<sub>10</sub> than men when supplemented with a single dose of CoQ<sub>10</sub> with monoglycerides omega-3 or rice oil and followed for 48 h: a crossover randomised triple blind controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), a lipid involved in ATP synthesis, exhibits very limited oral absorption, and its endogenous production decreases with ageing and with the occurrence of oxidative stress. Our group previously showed that monoglycerides omega-3 (MAG-OM3) increase OM3 plasma concentrations. Since CoQ10 is liposoluble, we hypothesised that its 48 h pharmacokinetics is higher when provided with MAG-OM3 compared to CoQ10 alone (in powder form) or added to rice oil (a neutral triacylglycerol oil). A randomised triple-blind crossover study was performed with fifteen men and fifteen women consuming the three supplements providing 200 mg of CoQ10 in a random order. Blood samples were collected before (t = 0) and 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 24 and 48 h after the supplement intake. Plasma total CoQ10 concentrations were analysed on ultrahigh-performance liquid chromatography coupled to a tandem mass spectrometer (UPLC-MS/MS). Participants were 26⋅1 ± 4⋅8 years old. When CoQ10 was provided with rice or MAG-OM3 oils, the 48 h area under the curve (AUC 0–48 h) was approximately two times higher compared to when provided without an oil. The delta max concentration (ΔCmax) of plasma CoQ10 was, respectively, 2 (MAG-OM3) and 2⋅5 (rice oil) times higher compared to CoQ10 alone. There was a significant sex by treatment interaction (P = 0⋅0250) for the AUC 0–6 h supporting that in postprandial, men and women do not respond the same way to the different supplement. Women had a higher CoQ10 concentration 48 h after the single-dose intake compared to men. We conclude that CoQ10 supplements must be provided with lipids, and their kinetics is different between men and women.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".