Carbon stable‐isotope tracking in breath for comparative studies of fuel use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Almost half a century ago, researchers demonstrated that the ratio of stable carbon isotopes in exhaled breath of rats and humans could reveal the oxidation of labeled substrates in vivo, opening a new chapter in the study of fuel use, the fate of ingested substrates, and aerobic metabolism. Until recently, the combined use of respirometry and stable-isotope tracer techniques had not been broadly employed to study fuel use in other animal groups. In this review, we summarize the history of this approach in human and animal research and define best practices that maximize its utility. We also summarize several case studies that use stable-isotope measurements of breath to explore the limits of aerobic metabolism and substrate turnover among several species and various physiological states. We highlight the importance of a comparative approach in revealing the profound effects that phylogeny, ecology, and behavior can have in shaping aerobic metabolism and energetics as well as the fundamental biological principles that underlie fuel use and metabolic function across taxa. New analytical equipment and refinement of methodology make the combined use of respirometry and stable-isotope tracer techniques simpler to perform, less costly, and more field ready than ever before.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".