Higher SAM-E 400 Predicts Slightly Lower Calories Burned for Population

Higher SAM-E 400 Predicts Slightly Lower Calories Burned for Population

Contents

Variables

A
SAM-E 400 22
A
Calories Burned 878

Categories

A
Treatments 9356
A
Physical Activity 1719

Actions

A
Join Study
A
Your Data

Tags

Low Confidence
Very Weak Effect Size
Negative Relationship
Population Study
cause image gauge image effect image
Participants reported a 0.6% average decrease in Calories Burned following above average SAM-E 400.

Abstract

<h5>Not Enough Shared Data</h5>Please create a study and share it with your friends so we can collect enough data to determine the effect of SAM-E 400 (tablets) on Calories Burned. <a href="https://web.quantimo.do/#/app/study-creation" title="Create a Study" class="create-study-button"> Create a Study </a> <h5>Solution: Create a Study</h5>Please create a study and share it with your friends so we can collect enough data to determine the effect of SAM-E 400 (tablets) on Calories Burned. <a href="https://web.quantimo.do/#/app/study-creation" title="Create a Study" class="create-study-button"> Create a Study </a>

Calories Burned was generally 4% higher than average after a total of 0 tablets of SAM-E 400 over the previous 7 days.

Aggregated data from 2 study participants suggests with a LOW degree of confidence (p=0.189, 95% CI -342.352 to 342.086) that SAM-E 400 has a weakly negative predictive relationship (R=-0.133) with Calories Burned.

The highest quartile of Calories Burned measurements were observed following an average 0.889 tablets SAM-E 400 per day.

The lowest quartile of Calories Burned measurements were observed following an average 0.906 tablets of SAM-E 400 per day.

After an onset delay of 30 minutes, Calories Burned is typically 3% lower than average over the 7 days following around 0.906 tablets of SAM-E 400 SAM-E 400.

Keywords: SAM-E 400, Calories Burned, N-of-1 trials, real-world evidence, causal inference, observational study

Preliminary: Based on 2 participants. Results may change as more data is collected.

Results

Primary Findings

Analysis of 19 paired observations from 2 participants revealed a minimal reduction in Calories Burned following above-average SAM-E 400 exposure.

0.0%
Change from Baseline
Minimal effect on Calories Burned
0.01
Predictor Impact Score
Insufficient evidence for causal relationship

Supporting Statistics

High
Confidence
-0.133
Correlation (r)
p = 0.010
Significance
z = 0.00
Effect Magnitude
φ = 0.91
Temporality

What This Means

When participants had above-average SAM-E 400:

  • Calories Burned decreased by 0.0% on average
  • Temporal analysis supports SAM-E 400 as the predictor (not the outcome)
  • This relationship is statistically significant (p = 0.010)

Interpreting the Predictor Impact Score

The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) integrates multiple Bradford Hill causal criteria into a single metric. Use this guide to interpret the score:

PIS Range Interpretation Recommended Action
≥ 0.5 Strong evidence High priority for RCT validation
0.3 - 0.5 Moderate evidence Consider for experimental investigation
0.1 - 0.3 Weak evidence Monitor for additional data
< 0.1 Insufficient evidence Low priority; may be noise

Note: PIS is a prioritization heuristic, not proof of causation. High scores indicate relationships worth investigating, not confirmed causal effects. With only 2 participants, these scores are preliminary and will become more reliable as additional data is collected.

Optimal Daily Values

No clear dose-response relationship detected. The SAM-E 400 values associated with high and low Calories Burned are too similar to provide meaningful dosing guidance. This may indicate a threshold effect (any amount works equally well), no effect, or insufficient data variance. With more participants, a clearer pattern may emerge.

Population Correlation

SAM-E 400 Distribution

Calories Burned Distribution

Statistical Summary

Relationship Statistics

Property Value
Cause Variable Name SAM-E 400
Effect Variable Name Calories Burned
Sinn Predictive Coefficient 0.012054405039164
Confidence Level LOW
Confidence Interval 342.21900651572
Forward Pearson Predictive Coefficient -0.133
Critical T Value 1.729
Total SAM-E 400 Over Previous 7 days Before ABOVE Average Calories Burned 0.889 tablets
Total SAM-E 400 Over Previous 7 days Before BELOW Average Calories Burned 0.906 tablets
Duration of Action 7 days
Effect Size weakly negative
Number of Paired Measurements 19
Optimal Pearson Product 0.097446875643975
P Value 0.1885
Statistical Significance 0.0095
Strength of Relationship 342.21900651572
Study Type population
Analysis Performed At 2026-01-04
Number of Participants 2

SAM-E 400 Info

Property Value
Variable Name SAM-E 400 (tablets)
Aggregation Method SUM
Analysis Performed At 2021-08-29
Duration of Action 21 days
Filling Value 0
Kurtosis 15.579513251372
Maximum Allowed Value 20 tablets
Mean 0.1189585 tablets
Median 0 tablets
Minimum Allowed Value 0 tablets
Number of Aggregate Predictors 0
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 22
Number of Measurements 19
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 19
Public true
Onset Delay 30 minutes
Standard Deviation 0.29298254368183
Unit Tablets
User Variables 2
UPC 753950002524
Variable Category Treatments
Variable ID 110292
Variance 0.098704301163318

Calories Burned Info

Property Value
Variable Name Calories Burned
Aggregation Method SUM
Analysis Performed At 2020-09-23
Duration of Action 7 days
Kurtosis 10.719482104079
Maximum Allowed Value 20000 kilocalories
Mean 1693.6119981094 kilocalories
Median 1643.7344918892 kilocalories
Minimum Allowed Value 100 kilocalories
Number of Aggregate Predictors 667
Number of Aggregate Outcomes 211
Number of Measurements 122895
Number of Measurements (including those generated by tagged, joined, or child variables) 21949
Public true
Onset Delay 0 seconds
Standard Deviation 420.78331639612
Unit Kilocalories
User Variables 393
UPC 0
Variable Category Physical Activity
Variable ID 1280
Variance 236738.41913029

Introduction

Background

SAM-E 400 (Treatments) and Calories Burned (Physical Activity) are both important factors in understanding human health and well-being. This study investigates the relationship between these two variables using real-world observational data.

Traditional randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the gold standard for causal inference, are often impractical, expensive, or unethical for studying many health relationships. Aggregated N-of-1 observational studies offer a complementary approach that leverages within-subject comparisons across large populations to identify meaningful patterns.

Research Question

Does SAM-E 400 affect Calories Burned?

Additionally, we seek to determine:

  1. What is the direction and magnitude of any effect?
  2. How confident can we be in this relationship based on the available data?
  3. What are the optimal levels of SAM-E 400 for maximizing Calories Burned?

Study Objective

The objective of this study is to determine the nature of the relationship (if any) between SAM-E 400 and Calories Burned. Additionally, we attempt to determine the SAM-E 400 (tablets) values most likely to produce optimal Calories Burned values.

Study Overview

This is a population-level observational study using aggregated N-of-1 methodology. By aggregating individual N-of-1 experiments, we can identify population-level patterns while accounting for the substantial individual variation that exists in most health relationships. Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline, enabling intuitive interpretation and comparison across different measures.

Full Methodology: Framework for Real-World Evidence-Based Pharmacovigilance: Aggregated N-of-1 Trials for Quantifying Treatment Effects

Discussion

Interpretation of Findings

Participants experienced a 0.0% reduction in Calories Burned following above-average SAM-E 400 exposure. The Predictor Impact Score (PIS) of 0.01 indicates insufficient evidence for a causal relationship. This finding is statistically significant (p = 0.010).

Statistical Significance

Using a two-tailed t-test with alpha = 0.05, it was determined that the change in Calories Burned is not statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval. This suggests that the SAM-E 400 value may not have a significant influence on the Calories Burned value, or that more data is needed to detect an effect.

T-Test Details
Observed t-value: 1.374
Critical t-value: 1.729

Since t = 1.37 < 1.73, we cannot reject the null hypothesis.

Biological Plausibility

A plausible bio-chemical mechanism between predictor and outcome is critical for interpreting observational findings. This is where human judgment excels beyond statistical analysis.

Community feedback on the biological plausibility of this relationship is still being collected. Consider the known mechanisms by which SAM-E 400 might influence Calories Burned.

Bradford Hill Criteria Assessment

The Bradford Hill criteria provide a framework for assessing causality in observational studies. Our methodology operationalizes six of the nine criteria through the Predictor Impact Score (PIS):

Criterion How Addressed Metric
Strength Effect size magnitude Percent change from baseline (Δ%), z-score
Consistency Cross-participant replication Number of users (N), number of pairs (n)
Temporality Predictor precedes outcome Temporality factor (φ), onset delay (δ > 0)
Biological Gradient Dose-response relationship Gradient coefficient (φgradient)
Plausibility Biological mechanism assessment Community votes on mechanism plausibility
Specificity Category appropriateness Interest factor (finterest)

Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

The PIS integrates multiple Bradford Hill criteria into a composite metric quantifying how reliably a predictor affects an outcome. Higher scores indicate stronger evidence:

Population-Level PIS:

$$\text{PIS}_{\text{agg}} = |r_{\text{forward}}| \cdot w \cdot \phi_{\text{users}} \cdot \phi_{\text{pairs}} \cdot \phi_{\text{change}} \cdot \phi_{\text{gradient}}$$

Where φ-factors are saturation functions approaching 1 as evidence accumulates:

  • φusers = 1 - e-N/10 (user saturation)
  • φpairs = 1 - e-n/nsig (pair saturation)
  • φchange = 1 - e-Δspread/Δsig (effect spread saturation)
  • w = weighted average of plausibility votes

Temporality Assessment

We assess evidence for correct causal direction using the temporality factor:

$$\phi_{\text{temporal}} = \frac{|r_{\text{forward}}|}{|r_{\text{forward}}| + |r_{\text{reverse}}|}$$

Values approaching 1 indicate the predictor precedes the outcome (supporting causation); values near 0.5 suggest ambiguous directionality; values near 0 suggest reverse causation or confounding by indication.

Limitations

The accuracy of this study may be limited by the fact that <h5>Not Enough Shared Data</h5>Please create a study and share it with your friends so we can collect enough data to determine the effect of SAM-E 400 (tablets) on Calories Burned. <a href="https://web.quantimo.do/#/app/study-creation" title="Create a Study" class="create-study-button"> Create a Study </a> <h5>Solution: Create a Study</h5>Please create a study and share it with your friends so we can collect enough data to determine the effect of SAM-E 400 (tablets) on Calories Burned. <a href="https://web.quantimo.do/#/app/study-creation" title="Create a Study" class="create-study-button"> Create a Study </a> . A greater amount of data and more variance in the data would help to resolve this issue.

As with any observational study, correlation does not prove causation. Key limitations include:

  • Unmeasured confounders: Variables not tracked may influence results
  • Self-selection bias: Health trackers may differ from the general population
  • Measurement error: Self-reported data may contain recall bias
  • Confounding by indication: Sicker individuals may use more treatments

However, within-subject comparison and temporal precedence analysis partially mitigate these limitations. If the relationship is merely coincidental, as participants independently modify their SAM-E 400 values, the observed strength will decline over time. Spurious correlations naturally dissipate as more data is collected.

Future Directions

Future research should examine:

  • Subgroup analyses to identify individual differences in response
  • Potential confounders and mediators of the observed relationship
  • Optimal dosing and timing for SAM-E 400
  • Confirmation through prospective or randomized designs
  • Biological mechanisms underlying the observed effects

Conclusion

📊 Preliminary Findings: With 2 participants, these results are based on limited data. Effect sizes and confidence will improve as more participants contribute data. Consider these findings directional rather than definitive.

Above-average SAM-E 400 was associated with a 0.0% reduction in Calories Burned—a minimal effect. The Predictor Impact Score of 0.01 indicates this relationship is requiring additional data before conclusions.

Bottom Line: Based on a PIS of 0.01 and a 0.0% effect size, this relationship currently lacks sufficient evidence. Continue monitoring as more data becomes available. Note: These conclusions may strengthen or change direction as more data is collected.

These findings contribute to our understanding of how SAM-E 400 may influence Calories Burned in real-world conditions. The within-subject design and temporal analysis provide confidence in these relationships, though observational limitations remain.

Help End Unnecessary Suffering

Current clinical trials are 82x more expensive than necessary and take 17 years to bring treatments to market. Pragmatic trials integrated into standard healthcare could reduce costs from $41,000 to $500 per participant and compress timelines to just 2 years. Learn how redirecting just 1% of global military spending could accelerate cures for the 2 billion people suffering from treatable diseases.

Make Suffering Optional

Methods

Study Design

This study is based on data donated by 2 participants. Thus, the study design is equivalent to the aggregation of 2 separate n=1 observational natural experiments.

This within-subject design is powerful because it controls for all stable individual characteristics (genetics, baseline health status, socioeconomic factors) that might otherwise confound the relationship between variables.

Data Analysis

Temporal Assumptions

The analysis incorporates temporal assumptions about the relationship between variables:

  • Onset Delay: It was assumed that 30 minutes would pass before a change in SAM-E 400 would produce an observable change in Calories Burned.
  • Duration of Action: It was assumed that SAM-E 400 could produce an observable change in Calories Burned for as much as 7 days after the stimulus event.

Statistical Methods

For each participant, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient between SAM-E 400 values and subsequent Calories Burned values. Individual correlations were then aggregated using Fisher's z-transformation to produce a population-level estimate:

Individual Correlation:

$$r_i = \frac{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)}{\sqrt{\sum(x_{ij} - \bar{x}_i)^2 \sum(y_{ij} - \bar{y}_i)^2}}$$

Fisher's Z-Transformation:

$$z_i = \frac{1}{2} \ln\left(\frac{1 + r_i}{1 - r_i}\right)$$

Aggregated Correlation:

$$\bar{r} = \tanh(\bar{z}) \quad \text{where} \quad \bar{z} = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N} z_i$$

Effect Size Calculation

Effect sizes are reported as percent change from baseline. For each participant, we compare the outcome following above-average predictor values to the overall baseline outcome:

$$\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}} = \frac{\bar{O}_{\text{follow-up}} - \bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}}{\bar{O}_{\text{baseline}}} \times 100$$

Effect Magnitude (Z-Score)

To assess effect magnitude relative to natural variability, we calculate the z-score:

$$z = \frac{|\Delta\%_{\text{baseline}}|}{\text{RSD}_{\text{baseline}}}$$

where RSDbaseline is the relative standard deviation of outcome during baseline period

A z-score > 2 indicates statistical significance (p < 0.05), meaning the observed change exceeds typical baseline fluctuation and is unlikely due to random variation.

Statistical Significance

Correlation significance is assessed using a two-tailed t-test:

$$t = \frac{r\sqrt{n-2}}{\sqrt{1-r^2}}$$

We reject the null hypothesis (ρ = 0) at α = 0.05 when |t| exceeds the critical value, providing statistical evidence that the observed relationship is not due to chance.

Data Sources

SAM-E 400 data was primarily collected using QuantiModo. QuantiModo allows you to easily track mood, symptoms, or any outcome you want to optimize in a fraction of a second. You can also import your data from over 30 other apps and devices. QuantiModo then analyzes your data to identify which hidden factors are most likely to be influencing your mood or symptoms.

Calories Burned data was primarily collected using Fitbit. Fitbit makes activity tracking easy and automatic.

Data Quality

Data quality measures were applied to ensure reliable results:

  • Minimum Data Requirement: Only participants with sufficient paired observations were included in the analysis.
  • Outlier Handling: Extreme values were winsorized to reduce the influence of measurement errors.
  • Missing Data: Days with missing values were handled using appropriate filling strategies based on the variable type.
  • Test User Exclusion: Test accounts and invalid users were excluded from all analyses.

Principal Investigator

Program & Methods

Mike P. Sinn
Sinn, M. P.

Designed and implemented data collection, aggregation, causal inference pipeline, and automated study generation framework. Developed the Predictor Impact Score methodology operationalizing Bradford Hill criteria for ranking causal relationships in observational data. When he tells people this at parties, they usually say they have to go check on their car.

Individual study outputs are automated, reproducible, and open to external audit. (Which I would seriously recommend.)

Contact

Cite This Study

APA Format
Sinn, M. P. (2026). Causal Analysis: Does SAM-E 400 (tablets) Affect Calories Burned?. The Journal of Citizen Science. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-110292-effect-1280-population-study
BibTeX 
@misc{sinn_cause_110292_effect_1280_population_study_2026,
  author = {Sinn, Mike P.},
  title = {Causal Analysis: Does SAM-E 400 (tablets) Affect Calories Burned?},
  year = {2026},
  publisher = {The Journal of Citizen Science},
  url = {https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-110292-effect-1280-population-study},
  note = {Accessed: January 6, 2026}
}
Chicago/Turabian
Sinn, Mike P. "Causal Analysis: Does SAM-E 400 (tablets) Affect Calories Burned?." The Journal of Citizen Science. Accessed January 6, 2026. https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-110292-effect-1280-population-study.
Harvard
Sinn, M.P., 2026. Causal Analysis: Does SAM-E 400 (tablets) Affect Calories Burned?. [Aggregated N-of-1 Study] The Journal of Citizen Science. Available at: https://studies.crowdsourcingcures.org/study/cause-110292-effect-1280-population-study [Accessed January 6, 2026].

Study Type: Aggregated N-of-1 Observational Mega-Study
Evidence Level: Level II (Real-World Evidence)
Methodology: Bradford Hill Criteria with Predictor Impact Score (PIS)

References

This framework was originally developed in 2013 based on the Bradford Hill criteria. Subsequent literature has independently validated similar approaches to causal inference from observational data:

  1. Hill, A.B. (1965). The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, 58(5), 295-300. [Bradford Hill criteria]
  2. Lillie, E.O., et al. (2011). The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personalized Medicine, 8(2), 161-173. [N-of-1 methodology]
  3. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference . Cambridge University Press. [Causal inference]
  4. Hernán, M.A., & Robins, J.M. (2020). Causal Inference: What If . Chapman & Hall/CRC. [Free textbook]
  5. FDA (2018). Framework for FDA's Real-World Evidence Program . U.S. Food and Drug Administration. [Regulatory context]
  6. Duan, N., et al. (2013). Single-patient (n-of-1) trials: a pragmatic clinical decision methodology . Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8), S21-S28.
  7. Platt, R., et al. (2018). The FDA Sentinel Initiative—an evolving national resource . New England Journal of Medicine, 379(22), 2091-2093.

This information is for research and educational purposes only, not medical advice. Consult a healthcare provider before making health decisions. Terms of Service

LinkedIn Reddit