Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese 2010: Basic Theories for the Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dietary Reference Intakes for Japanese (DRIs-J) 2010 was developed to provide reference values for the intake of energy and 34 nutrients for health maintenance and promotion and primary prevention of lifestyle-related diseases in healthy individuals and groups. The DRIs-J 2010, which follows the main concepts of the DRIs-J 2005, the prior version, provides the values for energy requirements as expressed by the estimated energy requirement (EER) and the values for nutrient intake as expressed by 5, the estimated average requirement (EAR), recommended dietary allowance (RDA), adequate intake (AI), tolerable upper intake level (UL), and tentative dietary goal for preventing lifestyle-related diseases (DG). On account of 3 factors—optimal intake varies among individuals, intake cannot be measured precisely, and the DRIs are aimed at maintaining health and preventing disease over the long term rather than addressing acute health effects in the short term—the DRIs were determined using the probability approach to provide the appropriate values for habitual rather than short-term intake. Each value of the DRIs used in the DRI-J 2010 is provided for 13 age groups (the values for energy and protein are provided for 14 groups), with separate values provided for women who are pregnant or lactating and for men and women. The EER is provided for 3 physical activity levels and the EAR, RDA, AI, and UL for 19, 18, 10, and 16 nutrients, respectively. The basic concepts behind the DRIs-J 2010 are almost same as those behind the DRIs of the United States and Canada with the unique exception that the DRIs-J 2010 also includes the DGs, dietary goals that were independently determined after consideration of the average body size, disease prevalence, and dietary habits of the Japanese population and the cumulative evidence regarding Japanese and East Asian populations. The DRIs-J 2010 has been used in practice since 2010 and is expected to be used until 2014. This review briefly describes the basic theories in its development.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".