MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resting energy expenditure and body composition of Labrador Retrievers fed high fat and low fat diets

2006· article· en· W2089556704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Seung Hyun Yoo, Jon J. Ramsey, Peter J. Havel, Philip G. Jones, Andrea J. Fascetti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, Davis
KeywordsResting energy expenditureAnimal scienceComposition (language)ChemistryFat massCalorimetryEnergy expenditureObesityEndocrinologyInternal medicineBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high dietary fat intake may be an important environmental factor leading to obesity in some animals. The mechanism could be either an increase in caloric intake and/or a decrease in energy expenditure. To test the hypothesis that high fat diets result in decreased resting energy expenditure (REE), we measured REE using indirect calorimetry in 10-adult intact male Labrador Retrievers, eating weight-maintenance high-fat (HF, 41% energy, average daily intake: 8018 +/- 1247 kJ/day, mean +/- SD) and low-fat (LF, 14% energy, average daily intake: 7331 +/- 771 kJ/day) diets for a 30-day period. At the end of each dietary treatment, body composition measurements were performed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. The mean +/- SD REE was not different between diets (4940 +/- 361 vs. 4861 +/- 413 kJ/day on HF and LF diets respectively). Measurements of fat-free mass (FFM) and fat mass (FM) also did not differ between diets (FFM: 26.8 +/- 2.3 kg vs. 26.3 +/- 2.5 kg; FM: 3.0 +/- 2.3 vs. 3.1 +/- 1.5 kg on HF and LF diets respectively). In summary, using a whole body calorimeter, we found no evidence of a decrease in REE or a change in body composition on a HF diet compared with LF diet.

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 score0.005

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal NutritionSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207