MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412500301 · doi:10.1080/15502783.2025.2533690

Safety of creatine supplementation: Analysis of Adverse Events reported in clinical trials and adverse event reports

2025· article· en· W4412500301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectClinical nutritionClinical trialAlternative medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Individual studies have indicated that creatine monohydrate (CrM) supplementation is generally well tolerated and not associated with clinically significant side effects. Nevertheless, anecdotal reports about side effects persist. This comprehensive analysis aimed to analyze the prevalence of adverse event reports (AERs) attributed to creatine supplementation reported in international surveillance systems.Methods We performed a comprehensive literature review on PubMed with the keywords “creatine” and “supplementation.” The prevalence of AERs mentioning creatine reported in the United States Food and Drug Administration Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS), the Canadian Vigilance Adverse Reaction Online Database, the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care, Therapeutic Goods Administration, the European Database of Suspected Adverse Drug Reaction Reports, and the Side Effect Resource (SIDER) 4.1 Side Effect Resource were assessed. These databases were searched for “creatine’ in dietary supplements or products following accepted protocols. Each report was evaluated to ensure creatine (Cr) was in the product mentioned by conducting an Internet search for the product name and evaluating the list of ingredients. We then categorized reports on products that contained only CrM, reports that involved consuming CrM in multi-ingredient supplements, products containing other “forms” or types of Cr, and whether Cr was consumed with other products. The total number of reports was divided by the total number of reports in the database over the 25, 50, 27, 24, and 10 years of monitoring AERs, respectively, to determine the percentage of reports in the database mentioning Cr. While AERs do not indicate causality, particularly when co-ingested with other nutrients and/or products, a low percentage of mentioning a nutrient or drug in these databases suggests safety from widespread use by the general public.Results Although AERs do not provide enough detail to assess causality and may not be attributed to creatine supplementation, only 203 adverse events mention creatine among 28.4 million reports (0.00072%). In the United States CAERS database, 46.3% of reports listing creatine did not contain creatine when evaluating the ingredients of the product listed. Among the CAERS that contained creatine as an ingredient, 37% listed CrM as the only product the individual was consuming, and 63% contained other nutrients consumed with CrM. Of these, only 15.8% involved ingestion of CrM with other nutrients, 47.3% involved other types of creatine, and 43.6% involved ingesting creatine with nutritional products or drugs, which makes attribution of CAERS to CrM alone impossible. Similar findings were seen when looking at other databases’ products associated with AERs.Conclusions The mention of Cr in worldwide AERs is rare (0.00072%), mostly associated with co-ingestion of other nutrients and/or drugs, and in some cases report symptoms Cr studies never observed in any clinical trial or unrelated to the known effects of Cr supplementation. These findings indicate that Cr supplements are well-tolerated in children through older adults and healthy and medically managed patient populations. Therefore, claims that Cr supplementation increases the risk of untoward side effects or AERs are unfounded. Based on these data, we urge lobbyists, policymakers, and health agencies to consult with leading creatine scientists and consider the full spectrum of scientific data before implementing restrictions with adverse public health and performance implications.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.345 · 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