MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988626581 · doi:10.1097/mco.0b013e3282f2a5a4

Individual amino acid requirements in humans: an update

2008· review· en· W1988626581 on OpenAlexaff
Rajavel Elango, Ronald O. Ball, Paul B. Pencharz

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic Care · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmino acidMedicineBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To discuss recent amino acid requirement studies in adult humans and school-age children, primarily determined using the indicator amino acid oxidation technique. RECENT FINDINGS: Using the minimally invasive indicator amino acid oxidation model, requirements for most indispensable amino acids have been defined in adult humans. The estimates are comparable to the values obtained using the more elaborate 24-h indicator amino acid oxidation and balance model. The less-invasive indicator amino acid oxidation model has also been successfully applied to define requirements in healthy school-age children and children with disease. A recent adaptation of the indicator amino acid oxidation method to determine protein requirements in adult humans resulted in mean and safe values of 0.93 and 1.2 g protein/kg/day, respectively. These estimates are 40-50% higher than current recommendations and suggest an urgent need to reassess recommendations for protein intake in humans. SUMMARY: In summary, indicator amino acid oxidation is a robust technique, and has resulted in the definition of amino acid and protein requirements in adult humans and children. A wider application of the technique in other vulnerable populations across life stages and in other diseases is now possible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Clinical Nutrition & Metabolic CareSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207