Individual amino acid requirements in humans: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".