MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149074623 · doi:10.1017/s0007114500000623

Reproducibility of energy and macronutrient intake and related substrate oxidation rates in a buffet-type meal

2000· article· en· W2149074623 on OpenAlexafffund
Konstantinia Arvaniti, Denis Richard, Angelo Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal Of Nutrition · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMealReproducibilityFood scienceCarbohydrateChemistryAnimal scienceBiologyBiochemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this present study was to determine the reliability of a buffet-type meal as a measure of spontaneous energy and macronutrient intake. In addition, we evaluated the short-term effects of diet on the composition of the substrate mix oxidized postprandially. Fourteen male subjects had ad libitum access to a variety of foods from a buffet-type meal offered in the laboratory during two identical sessions. The foods comprising the test meal had varying amounts of protein, lipid and carbohydrate. The results showed that there were significant intraclass correlations (ri) for energy (ri 0.97, P = 0.0001), lipid (ri 0.97, P = 0.0001), carbohydrate (ri 0.92, P = 0.0003) and protein (ri 0.82, P = 0.0072) intake between the two meal sessions. Hunger and fullness levels measured immediately before and during 4 h after the meal were identical under the two conditions. In addition, there was no significant difference between the two sessions for RQ and resting energy expenditure, which showed significant reproducibility for measurements obtained immediately before, immediately after, as well as 30 min after, the buffet. This present study demonstrates the high reproducibility of energy and macronutrient intake and oxidation rate values obtained with a buffet-type meal in healthy male subjects and suggests that the use of this test is a reliable method for assessment of macronutrient preferences in the laboratory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations103
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal Of NutritionSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207