MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323037723 · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgad117

Letter to the Editor From Modarressi and Derakhshan: “Effects of Coenzyme Q10 Supplementation on Lipid Profiles in Adults: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials”

2023· letter· en· W4323037723 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Taher Modarressi, Arsalan Derakhshan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCoenzyme Q10 studies and effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoenzyme Q10Randomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMedicineClinical trialInternal medicineLibrary scienceFamily medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We applaud Liu and colleagues for their thorough meta-analysis of the effects of coenzyme Q10 supplementation on lipid profiles (1). However, we believe the impact of their findings is misstated. The authors cite the 2005 Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration data (2) and state “reducing [low-density lipoprotein cholesterol] LDL-C by 3.03 mg/dL [0.078 mmol/L] might lower coronary mortality by 1.49%”. However, the CTT data cited shows a 19% relative risk reduction in coronary heart disease-specific mortality for every 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL-C, not absolute risk reduction (which was 1%). This is a critical distinction: a 1.49% relative risk reduction would be among the weakest and most insignificant cardiovascular interventions available, dwarfed by many possible intensive lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions. As the CTT investigators themselves say, the absolute benefit relates to an individual's absolute risk and absolute reduction in LDL-C. Therefore, we propose this meta-analysis better highlights that there is no role for coenzyme Q10 supplementation for the sole and direct purpose of reduction of LDL-C, and the data presented does not justify the authors’ comment that supplementation may be helpful for “early prevention of cardiovascular diseases.”

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0160.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & MetabolismSame topicCoenzyme Q10 studies and effectsFrench-language works237,207