MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167278195 · doi:10.1093/icb/icu054

A Beginner's Guide to Nutritional Profiling in Physiology and Ecology

2014· article· en· W2167278195 on OpenAlexaff
Paul C. Frost, Keunyea Song, Nicole D. Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganismBiologyProfiling (computer programming)EcologyPhenotypePhysiologyComputer scienceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nutritional history of an organism is often difficult to ascertain. Nonetheless, this information on past diet can be particularly important when explaining the role of nutrition in physiological responses and ecological dynamics. One approach to infer the past dietary history of an individual is through characterization of its nutritional phenotype, an interrelated set of molecular and physiological properties that are sensitive to dietary stress. Comparisons of nutritional phenotypes between a study organism and reference phenotypes have the potential to provide insight into the type and intensity of past dietary constraints. Here, we describe this process of nutritional profiling for ecophysiological research in which a suite of molecular and physiological responses are cataloged for animals experiencing known types and intensities of dietary stress and are quantitatively compared with those of unknown individuals. We supplement this delineation of the process of nutritional profiling with a first-order analysis of its sensitivity to the number of response variables in the reference database, their responsiveness to diet, and the size of reference populations. In doing so, we demonstrate the considerable promise this approach has to transform future studies of nutrition by its ability to provide more and better information on responses to dietary stress in animals and their 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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207