MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409141659 · doi:10.1101/2025.04.01.25325057

A Randomized Safety and Feasibility Crossover Trial of two Mediterranean-Ketogenic Interventions in Individuals with Parkinson’s Disease

2025· preprint· en· W4409141659 on OpenAlexafffund
Kira Tosefsky, Joyce S. T. Lam, Yolanda N. Wang, Shayan Keymanesh, Annie J Kuan, Avril Metcalfe‐Roach, Mihai Cîrstea, Matthew Sacheli, B. Brett Finlay, Tamara R. Cohen, Silke Appel‐Cresswell

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsCanada's Michael Smith Genome Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsParkinson's diseasePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialCrossover studyMedicineKetogenic dietDiseasePsychologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryAlternative medicineInternal medicineEpilepsyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND Both Mediterranean and ketogenic diets have been proposed as nutritional interventions in Parkinson’s disease (PD). Combined approaches may offer maximal benefits. OBJECTIVE Assess the feasibility, safety and exploratory efficacy of two Mediterranean-ketogenic dietary interventions in individuals with PD (PwP). METHODS In this Phase II, random-order crossover study, PwP followed two 8-week dietary interventions, separated by an 8-week washout: 1) a high-fat, low-carbohydrate Mediterranean diet (MeDi-KD) and 2) a standard Mediterranean diet supplemented with medium chain triglycerides (MeDi-MCT). RESULTS Of 52 participants randomized, 48 started the trial. Forty-one (79%) participants completed at least one and 33 (63%) completed both intervention phases. There were no intervention-related serious adverse events, nor any significant changes in plasma lipid profiles. Seventy-three percent and 92% of participants reported deviating from the MeDi-KD and MeDi-MCT no more than a few times per month, respectively. Moderate Mediterranean Diet Adherence Scores of 6.7 (SD: 1.6) and 7.2 (SD: 2.3) were achieved during the MeDi-KD and MeDi-MCT, respectively, out of a maximum of 14. Fifty percent of participants were in nutritional ketosis (BHB >0.5 mM) at follow-up for the MeDi-KD, as compared with only 1 (3%) participant following the MeDi-MCT. MDS-UPDRS Part II and IV scores decreased by a mean of -1.4 (SD: 4.2; p=0.039) and -1.0 (SD: 3.0; p=0.044) points, respectively, following the MeDi-MCT. CONCLUSIONS Mediterranean-ketogenic interventions appear safe and potentially beneficial in PwP. Behavioral strategies to optimize adherence should be employed in future phase III trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05469997 . PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY Many patients want to know what the best diet is to follow for their Parkinson’s disease. Previous studies have suggested benefits of both ketogenic diets, which are high in fats and low in carbohydrates, and Mediterranean-style diets. Combining these two approaches could offer maximal advantages, while reducing the challenges of following a strict ketogenic diet. The aim of this study was to test whether so-called “Mediterranean-ketogenic” diets would be safe and practical for patients with Parkinson’s disease to follow. Early indicators of potential clinical benefit were also assessed. Fifty-two participants were randomly assigned to follow two types of Mediterranean-ketogenic diets for eight weeks each, with an eight-week break in between. The two interventions were: 1) A high-fat, low carbohydrate version of a Mediterranean diet (MeDi-KD) and 2) A Mediterranean diet administered with a ketogenic supplement, medium-chain triglyceride oil (MeDi-MCT). Forty-eight people started the study, 41 completed at least one diet intervention phase and 33 completed both intervention phases. No serious side effects were reported. Although most participants felt they followed the diets closely, objective measures of adherence suggested room for improvement. The MeDi-MCT diet led to small but significant improvements in patient-reported motor activities of daily living and motor complications. Longer-term studies are needed to validate these findings. Future trials should incorporate behavioral coaching techniques to better help participants follow the diets.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDiet and metabolism studies→French-language works237,207→