Diverging metabolic programmes and behaviours during states of starvation, protein malnutrition, and cachexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our evolutionary history is defined, in part, by our ability to survive times of nutrient scarcity. The outcomes of the metabolic and behavioural adaptations during starvation are highly efficient macronutrient allocation, minimization of energy expenditure, and maximized odds of finding food. However, in different contexts, caloric deprivation is met with vastly different physiologic and behavioural responses, which challenge the primacy of energy homeostasis. METHODS: We conducted a literature review of scientific studies in humans, laboratory animals, and non-laboratory animals that evaluated the physiologic, metabolic, and behavioural responses to fasting, starvation, protein-deficient or essential amino acid-deficient diets, and cachexia. Studies that investigated the changes in ingestive behaviour, locomotor activity, resting metabolic rate, and tissue catabolism were selected as the focus of discussion. RESULTS: Whereas starvation responses prioritize energy balance, both protein malnutrition and cachexia present existential threats that induce unique adaptive programmes, which can exacerbate the caloric insufficiency of undernutrition. We compare and contrast the behavioural and metabolic responses and elucidate the mechanistic pathways that drive state-dependent alterations in energy seeking and partitioning. CONCLUSIONS: The evolution of energetically inefficient metabolic and behavioural responses to protein malnutrition and cachexia reveal a hierarchy of metabolic priorities governed by discrete regulatory networks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".