Is resting metabolic rate different between men and women?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A low resting metabolic rate (RMR) has been proposed as a possible cause for the increased body fat commonly seen in women compared with men. Absolute RMR is higher in men, but whether RMR adjusted for lean body mass (LBM) remains higher is unresolved. The objective of the present study was to determine whether RMR adjusted for various body composition factors differed between healthy adult men and women. Thirty men years, BMI and twenty-eight women years, BMI were included in the analyses. RMR was measured by open-circuit indirect calorimetry for 60 min. Extracellular water (ECW) was measured by corrected Br(-) space and total body water (TBW) by 2H dilution. LBM was estimated as TBW/0.732. Intracellular water (ICW) was calculated as TBW-ECW, and body cell mass (BCM) as ICW/0.732. Men were heavier and had higher BMI, LBM, BCM and ECW, but less fat mass. Absolute RMR was higher in men than women v. P<0.0001). This difference became non-significant when RMR was adjusted for LBM by ANCOVA v. P=0.2191), but remained significant when adjusted for BCM v. P=0.0249). Fat mass explained a significant amount of variation in RMR in women (r(2) 0.28, P=0.0038), but not in men (r(2) 0.03, P=0.3301). The relationships between body fat and the various subcompartments of BCM and RMR require further elucidation.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it