MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2157439849 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n1p277

Dietary Intake of Vitamins and Minerals in Adolescent Sprint Athletes: A Three Year Follow-up Study

2012· article· en· W2157439849 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dirk Aerenhouts, Peter Deriemaeker, Marcel Hebbelinck, Peter Clarys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronutrientSprintAthletesMedicineAnthropometryVitaminEnvironmental healthPhysical therapyEndocrinologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to assess micronutrient intake and supplement use in adolescent sprint athletes. Anthropometrics, micronutrient intake and supplement use of 60 adolescent sprint athletes were recorded every six months over a 3-year period. Age at start was 14.8 ± 1.6 years for the female and 14.7 ± 1.9 years for the male athletes. Over the 3 years, both girls and boys normally gained in body height and - weight. Consistent low intakes were observed for iron in girls, and for calcium, vitamin E and B2 in both sexes, whilst sodium intake exceeded the upper reference limit. Supplements were used without prescription and athletes with the better nutritional profile showed higher supplement use compared to those with poorer habits. General non-stringent advice for dietary improvement resulted in significantly favourable changes only for the consumption of wholegrain bread, vegetables, and soft drinks. Micronutrient intakes of adolescent sprint athletes are relatively stable and not always according the guidelines, regardless of supplement use. Repeated nutritional feedback induced only moderate improvements.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations5
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food Research→Same topicMuscle metabolism and nutrition→French-language works237,207→