MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415474561 · doi:10.1681/asn.2025xa5fbcv2

Evaluation of Levocarnitine Use in Pediatric Patients Undergoing Peritoneal Dialysis

2025· article· en· W4415474561 on OpenAlexaff
Christoph Licht, Valentina Bruno, James Tjon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeritoneal dialysisLevocarnitineKidney diseaseNephrologyDialysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with ESRD undergoing peritoneal dialysis (PD) experience significant L-carnitine loss, altering acyl/free carnitine ratio (AFCR). Secondary carnitine deficiency manifests in clinical complications such as EPO-resistant anemia, intradialytic hypotension, cardiomyopathy, and skeletal muscle weakness. The efficacy of L-carnitine supplementation in reversing deficiency remains unclear and few studies have evaluated its use in PD, limiting evidence-based recommendations. This quality improvement study investigated L-carnitine supplementation in the pediatric PD population. Methods: Retrospective chart review (2018–2024) was completed for 20 PD patients (2–17 years) receiving intraperitoneal L-carnitine in varying monthly doses (500 mg, 750 mg, or 1000 mg). Patients were evaluated pre-treatment, monthly during treatment, and post-treatment at their final visit. Carnitine deficiency was defined as AFCR>0.4. The primary outcome was correction of AFCR, classified as ‘improvement’ and measured by a lower post-treatment AFCR compared to pre-treatment. Secondary outcomes included anemia presence measured by hemoglobin levels and erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA) doses. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, t-tests, and Chi-Squared tests. Results: 9/20 patients (45%) showed improvement, 10/20 (50%) worsened as seen by increased AFCR, and 1 (5%) showed no change (p=0.8). Mean duration of treatment was 13.7±7.7 months and was significantly associated with improvement (p<0.001). Improved patients received similar mean L-carnitine (28.8 vs 20.7mg/kg) and ESA doses to worsened patients (p=0.2, p=0.8, p=0.4). An association between L-carnitine dose and post-AFCR was seen (p<0.001), as well as a significant decrease between pre- and post-AFCR in improved patients (p=0.003). Age was associated with L-carnitine dose and improvement, whereby patients ages <=10 years received higher weight-adjusted doses than patients ages 11-17 (p=0.09). Treatment duration was strongly associated with hemoglobin levels in all patients (p<0.001). Conclusion: L-carnitine supplementation in higher doses and for longer duration was associated with improvement in 45% of patients, as evidenced by lower post-treatment AFCRs. Further research and larger sample size are required to determine whether correction of AFCR is beneficial against associated complications.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→