Increase in the Thermic Effect of Food in Women by Adrenergic Amines Extracted from Citrus Aurantium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the thermic response to a meal between men and women of varied body composition and to determine whether adrenergic amines extracted from citrus aurantium (CA) induce an increase in metabolic rate and enhance the thermic response to the meal. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: In 30 healthy weight-stable subjects (17 women, 13 men; BMI: 20 to 42 kg/m2), body composition was determined by bioimpedance analysis followed by resting energy expenditure for 20 minutes, and the thermic effect of food (TEF) of a 1.7-MJ, 30-gram protein meal was determined intermittently for 300 minutes by indirect calorimetry. In a subset of 22 subjects, the TEFs of CA alone and when added to the same 1.7-MJ meal were determined. Blood pressure and pulse before and throughout the studies and catecholamine excretion were determined. RESULTS: TEF was significantly lower in women than men (152 +/- 7 vs. 190 +/- 12 kJ and 8.8 +/- 0.4% vs. 11.0 +/- 0.7% of meal), independently of age and magnitude of adiposity. The thermic response to CA alone was higher in men, but, when added to the meal, CA increased TEF only in women and to values no longer different from men. CA had no effect on blood pressure and pulse rate but increased epinephrine excretion by 2.4-fold. DISCUSSION: A 20% lower TEF in women suggests a diminished sympathetic nervous system response to meals, because with CA, TEF increased by 29% only in women. However, this acute response may not translate into a chronic effect or a clinically significant weight loss over time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".