MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

D<scp>IFFERENT</scp> A<scp>PPROACHES TO</scp> D<scp>EFINE</scp> I<scp>NDIVIDUAL</scp> A<scp>MINO</scp> A<scp>CID</scp> R<scp>EQUIREMENTS</scp>

2003· review· en· W2164108680 on OpenAlexaff
Paul B. Pencharz, Ronald O. Ball

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Nutrition · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmino acidBiochemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A full review of the strengths and limitations of the various methods used to define amino acid requirements is provided. The focus is on the recent development of carbon oxidation techniques such as indicator amino acid oxidation and 24-h amino acid balance to determine dietary indispensable (essential) amino acid needs in adults. All approaches depend on the change in a metabolic parameter in response to graded intake of the test amino acid. In humans, the within-subject variance is less than the between-subject variance, which has led to an appreciation of the need to study each subject across a range of intakes, above and below the mean requirement level. The data can then be analyzed using two-phase linear regression crossover and a precise population mean requirement can be determined. Several approaches have been used to define the variance of the mean requirement. Finally, a minimally invasive indicator amino acid oxidation model has been developed which allows the determination of dietary essential amino acid requirements in children and other vulnerable populations.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.029

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations174
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of NutritionSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207