Analysis of Human Faecal Host Proteins: Responsiveness to 10-Week Dietary Intervention Modifying Dietary Protein Intake in Elderly Males
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faecal proteomics targeting biomarkers of immunity and inflammation have demonstrated clinical application for the identification of changes in gastrointestinal function. However, there are limited comprehensive analyses of the host faecal proteome and how it may be influenced by dietary factors. To examine this, the Homo sapiens post-diet proteome of older males was analysed at the completion of a 10-week dietary intervention, either meeting the minimum dietary protein recommendations (RDA; n = 9) or twice the recommended dietary allowance (2RDA, n = 10). The host faecal proteome differed markedly between individuals, with only a small subset of proteins present in ≥ 60% of subjects (14 and 44 proteins, RDA and 2RDA, respectively, with only 7 common to both groups). No differences were observed between the diet groups on the profiles of host faecal proteins. Faecal proteins were detected from a wide range of protein classes, with high inter-individual variation and absence of obvious impact in response to diets with markedly different protein intake. This suggests that well-matched whole food diets with two-fold variation in protein intake maintained for 10 weeks have minimal impact on human faecal host proteins.
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) | 0.001 | 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".