MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W201955730 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.20.4.a9

Indicator amino acid oxidation (1‐ <sup>13</sup> C‐phenylalanine) is not affected by day of adaptation (1, 3 or 7d) to a wide range of lysine intake in young men

2006· article· en· W201955730 on OpenAlexafffund
Rajavel Elango, Arshad Humayun, Ronald O. Ball, Paul B. Pencharz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of AlbertaHospital for Sick Children
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhenylalanineAmino acidLysineChemistryAdaptation (eye)BiochemistryInternal medicineAnimal scienceBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method uses a short term adaptation (1d) to determine amino acid requirements. Our objective was to examine whether a prolonged adaptation period caused significant changes in oxidation of the indicator amino acid, 1‐ 13 C‐phenylalanine. Three, healthy, male subjects randomly received each of the 4 test lysine intakes (5, 20, 35 and 70 mg/kg/d) for 7‐d. IAAO studies were conducted on d1, 3 and 7 with breath and blood samples collected at baseline and isotopic steady state. The experimental diet was isocaloric and isonitrogenous, with protein supplied at 1.0 g/kg/d based on egg protein composition. Data was analyzed by mixed‐models ANOVA with repeated measures. 13 C‐phenylalanine oxidation ( F 13 CO2, μmol/kg/hr) due to adaptation Phenylalanine oxidation ( F 13 CO 2 ) was not significantly different within 1, 3 or 7 d of adaptation for any of the lysine intakes. Thus, adaptation to longer periods does not affect the derived estimates of dietary amino acid requirements. (CIHR supported).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207