MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887641650 · doi:10.3390/nu10081099

An Update on Protein, Leucine, Omega-3 Fatty Acids, and Vitamin D in the Prevention and Treatment of Sarcopenia and Functional Decline

2018· review· en· W2887641650 on OpenAlexaff
Anne‐Julie Tessier, Stéphanie Chevalier

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSarcopeniaVitamin D and neurologyMedicineLeucinePolyunsaturated fatty acidNutritional SupplementationVitaminObservational studyGerontologyEndocrinologyInternal medicinePhysiologyBiologyBiochemistryFatty acidAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aging is associated with sarcopenia and functional decline, leading to frailty and disability. As a modifiable risk factor, nutrition may represent a target for preventing or postponing the onset of these geriatric conditions. Among nutrients, high-quality protein, leucine, vitamin D, and omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFA) are of particular interest for their demonstrated effects on skeletal muscle health. This narrative review aims to examine the recent observational and interventional evidence on the associations and the role of these nutrients in the muscle mass, strength, mobility, and physical function of free-living older adults, who are either healthy or at risk of frailty. Recent evidence supports a higher protein intake recommendation of 1.0–1.2 g/kg/day in healthy older adults; an evenly distributed mealtime protein intake or minimal protein per meal may be beneficial. In addition, vitamin D supplementation of 800–1000 IU, particularly when vitamin D status is low, and doses of ~3 g/day of n-3 PUFA may be favorable for physical function, muscle mass, and strength. Reviewed studies are highly heterogenous, yet the quantity, quality, and timing of intakes should be considered when designing intervention studies. Combined protein, leucine, vitamin D, and n-3 PUFA supplements may convey added benefits and may represent an intervention strategy in the prevention of sarcopenia and functional decline.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.303 · 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

Citations132
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicNutrition and Health in AgingFrench-language works237,207