Assessing the Effects of High Sugar and Protein Diets on Reproduction and Longevity in Crickets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on longevity are becoming increasingly important due to the aging population. The house cricket, Acheta domesticus, is an effective model for longevity studies due to its short lifespan of 120 days. This study explored the effects of diet on reproduction and longevity in A. domesticus. There were four treatment groups: 1) control diet with reproduction, 2) control diet with reproductive isolation, 3) high protein diet with reproduction, and 4) high sugar diet with reproduction. We began monitoring the crickets following maturity to allow for reproductive analysis. Death counts were conducted daily, followed by replenishment of food and water supplies. Egg counts and weight measurements were conducted weekly. Results showed that crickets on the high sugar diet had significantly longer lifespan than other treatments. The lowest lifespan was seen in crickets on the high protein diet. Conversely, the highest reproductive output was seen in the high protein diet and the lowest was in the high sugar diet. The reproductively isolated control group had a significantly greater longevity than the reproductive control group. Taken together, the research shows an inverse relationship between reproduction and longevity as modulated by dietary consumption of proteins and carbohydrates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".