Dietary protein requirement of 65–75 year old adult males using indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current dietary protein requirement for adult males aged 65–75 are based on nitrogen balance data and suggest no difference in requirement between the elderly and young adults. Recent studies in young adult males using IAAO technique suggest that nitrogen balance estimates are too low. The objective of this study was to determine the protein requirement of elderly men using the IAAO technique with L‐[1‐ 13 C]‐phenylalanine as the indicator. Preliminary studies have been conducted in 3/7 (65–75 year old) men. Each received a minimum of 7 protein intakes (0.2 – 1.8 g.kg −1 .d −1 ) in random order after a 2 day adaptation providing energy at 1.7 times measured resting energy expenditure and protein at 1.0 g.kg −1 .d −1 . Oxidation study day diets were amino acid based liquid diets patterned after egg protein. The mean protein requirement was determined by visual inspection of the preliminary F 13 CO 2 obtained from the oxidation of L‐[1‐ 13 C]‐phenylalanine in response to graded protein intakes. Preliminary estimates suggest a mean protein requirement of 0.8 g.kg −1 .d −1 . This preliminary data suggest that the mean protein requirement of elderly men aged 65–75 years is 20% higher than current recommendations. This study was supported by a grant from the Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR).
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".