Reproducibility of short-term food intake and subjective appetite scores after a glucose preload, ventilation threshold, and body composition in boys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of these studies was to assess the reproducibility of (i) short-term food intake (FI) and subjective appetite following a glucose preload, (ii) ventilation threshold (VT) and subjective appetite after short-duration exercise, and (iii) body composition assessed by bioelectrical impedance (BIA). On two separate weekend mornings, boys (n = 11; aged 9-14 years) received drinks containing 50 g glucose made up to 250 mL with water 2 h after a standardized breakfast. FI from a pizza meal was measured 30 min later. Subjective appetite was measured before and after the glucose loads and the VT measures. VTs were measured on 2 weekday evenings, 1 week apart. BIA was measured during the FI assessment sessions. Short-term FI after the glucose preload was highly reproducible. Mean energy intake was 925 +/- 139 kcal on the first day and 988 +/- 147 kcal on the second day (coefficient of repeatability (CR) = 259 kcal; intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.96). Moderate reproducibility of the average appetite score was found at 30 min (CR = 24 mm; ICC = 0.82). Subjective appetite was increased similarly by short-duration exercise on both days (CR = 19 mm). Absolute VT was more highly reproducible (CR = 359 mL O2.min(-1), ICC = 0.85) than VT expressed on the basis of body weight (CR = 8.0 mL O2.kg(-1).min(-1), ICC = 0.59). Fat mass (FM) estimated from BIA was highly reproducible (CR = 2.7 kg, ICC = 0.95), but underestimated FM compared with skinfolds. In conclusion, FI and subjective appetite scores in response to glucose preloads, VT, subjective appetite after short-duration exercise, and estimates of FM from BIA are reproducible in boys.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".