Intracellular Nutritional Biomarker Differences in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Subjects and Healthy Controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A comparison of the nutritional biomarkers between ME/CFS subjects and healthy controls (HC) was undertaken on secondary data collected from an IRB approved cross-sectional study in ME/CFS patients. ME/CFS participants were recruited per the 2018 revised Canadian Clinical Case Definition for ME/CFS along with age matched HCs. Self-reported information on demographics and supplement use was collected, and body mass index calculated. HEI was calculated from Willet FFQ and multiple day 24-hour recall data, and severity of fatigue measured by Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI). Lymphocyte transformation assay by SpectraCell Lab (Houston, TX) was employed for intracellular micronutrient status. A series of two-tailed Mann-Whitney U tests (ɑ = 0.05) were performed for the non-parametric data expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean. All statistical analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics version 25 (Armonk, NY). Out of the 21 participants (11 ME/CFS and 10 HC), 82% of ME/CFS and 50% of HC were female. Higher fatigue scores were observed in ME/CFS (16.64 ± 1.36) than HC (10.78 ± 2.14). ME/CFS had better HEI scores (63.36 ± 13.44) than the HC (38.55 ± 12.29). However, despite better diet quality and supplementation, ME/CFS group showed lower intracellular Vitamin B3 and manganese (Mn) (86.3 ± 2.42 and 53.6 ± 2.81 respectively) but higher calcium (Ca) (57.5 ± 3.55) as compared to HC (97.2 ± 2.31, 64.5 ± 1.87 and 46.5 ± 0.96 respectively). The results align with the current literature on indications of mitochondrial dysfunction in ME/CFS. Reduced intracellular vit B3 provides suboptimal production of the NAD(P)(H)-cofactor family, thus affecting mitochondrial function and consequently energy production. The aberration in energy metabolism is compounded by other factors, such as reduced Mn but higher Ca intracellular levels seen in this study indicating disruptions in oxidative stress pathways, resulting in debilitating fatigue experienced by individuals with ME/CFS. NSU Presidential Faculty Research and Development Grant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".