Evidence-based evaluation of potential benefits and safety of beta-alanine supplementation for military personnel
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This Department of Defense-sponsored evidence-based review evaluates the safety and putative outcomes of enhancement of athletic performance or improved recovery from exhaustion in studies involving beta-alanine alone or in combination with other ingredients. Beta-alanine intervention studies and review articles were collected from 13 databases, and safety information was collected from adverse event reporting portals. Due to the lack of systematic studies involving military populations, all the available literature was assessed with a subgroup analysis of studies on athletes to determine if beta-alanine would be suitable for the military. Available literature provided only limited evidence concerning the benefits of beta-alanine use, and a majority of the studies were not designed to address safety. Overall, the strength of evidence in terms of the potential for risk of bias in the quality of the available literature, consistency, directness, and precision did not support the use of beta-alanine by military personnel. The strength of evidence for a causal relation between beta-alanine and paresthesia was moderate.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it