MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2422502681 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2016-0178

Guanidinoacetic acid versus creatine for improved brain and muscle creatine levels: a superiority pilot trial in healthy men

2016· article· en· W2422502681 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sergej M. Ostojić, Jelena Ostojić, Patrik Drid, Milan Vraneš

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMuscle metabolism and nutrition
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreatineCrossover studyCreatine MonohydrateMedicineBioenergeticsPhosphocreatineInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnergy metabolismPlaceboChemistryBiochemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this randomized, double-blind, crossover trial, we evaluated whether 4-week supplementation with guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) is superior to creatine in facilitating creatine levels in healthy men (n = 5). GAA (3.0 g/day) resulted in a more powerful rise (up to 16.2%) in tissue creatine levels in vastus medialis muscle, middle-cerebellar peduncle, and paracentral grey matter, as compared with creatine (P < 0.05). These results indicate that GAA as a preferred alternative to creatine for improved bioenergetics in energy-demanding tissues.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.750
Threshold uncertainty score0.855

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and MetabolismSame topicMuscle metabolism and nutritionFrench-language works237,207