Effect of Long-term Ingestion of Chicken Extract on Muscular Power for Middle and Advanced Age Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
カルノシン，アンセリンを高濃度に含有する鶏肉抽出物の摂取が，中高齢者の筋力にもたらす影響を検討した．中高齢者20名を2群に分け，鶏肉抽出物をそれぞれ一日量に1 500 mg（カルノシン，アンセリンの合計量として225 mg）もしくは0 mgを4週間継続摂取させた．摂取期間の前後に，等速性膝最大伸展力，膝最大屈曲力，および開眼片足立ちの保持時間を測定した．その結果，鶏肉抽出物群において，有意な膝最大伸展力の向上，開眼片足立ち保持時間の延長が認められた．これらの結果より，カルノシン，アンセリンを含有する鶏肉抽出物の摂取は，中高齢者の筋力の向上に有効であると考えられた．
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".