So I looked at the results again.
Both individuals were placed on a ketogenic diet for eight weeks. During the 8-week treatment period, GKI dropped from about 27.5 to about 0.7 – 1.1 in the patients. The patient with the anaplastic astrocytoma, who did not have a response to prior chemotherapy, had a 21.7% reduction in fluorodeoxyglucose uptake at the tumor site (no chemotherapy during diet). The patient with the cerebellar astrocytoma received standard chemotherapy concomitant with the ketogenic diet. Fluorodeoxyglucose uptake at the tumor site in this patient was reduced by 21.8%. Quality of life was markedly improved in both children after initiation of the KD [27].
They show a drop in the GKI in both patients using a ketogenic diet. Both patients have brain tumours. They demonstrate a measurable reduction difference in glucose (labelled) uptake at the tumour site. They state with references a clinical observation, “Quality of life was markedly improved in both children after initiation of the KD“ (KD = ketogenic diet). Within its context and limits this seems successful. They applied the GKI tool in the monitoring.
I didn’t dive into the mouse data as the human case studies have more relevance, I think.
Are those limited results evidence enough for the claim?
I wrote all this then understanding dawned on me. I am slow on the uptake. Thanks for putting up with me ponderously working through it.
I understand we are applying at the root of the discussion a different metric for evidence and that this observational evidence (n=1 x 2) is not the same, nor as good quality, as statistically significant evidence. But is it adequate?