MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155344378 · doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2021.01.026

Almond Bioaccessibility in a Randomized Crossover Trial: Is a Calorie a Calorie?

2021· article· en· W3155344378 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMayo Clinic Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNuts composition and effects
Canadian institutionsThe Wilson CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SaskatchewanSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationAlmond Board of California
KeywordsCrossover studyMedicineCalorieFood scienceFecesHyperlipidemiaNutrientAnimal scienceRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineChemistryEndocrinologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the energy and macronutrient bioaccessibility of almonds in individuals with hyperlipidemia. METHODS: In a previously reported randomized crossover trial, men and postmenopausal women with hyperlipidemia incorporated 3 isoenergetic supplements into a National Cholesterol Education Program Step 2 diet for 1 month each between September 20, 2000, and June 27, 2001. Supplements provided consisted of full-dose almonds (73±5 g/d), half-dose almonds (38±3 g/d) plus half-dose muffins, and full-dose muffins (control). Energy and macronutrients, including individual fatty acids, were measured in the dietary supplements and fecal samples using gas chromatography and Association of Official Analytical Chemists methods. Serum was measured for lipids and fatty acids. Bioaccessibility of energy and macronutrients from almond consumption was assessed from dietary intake (7-day food records) and fecal output. RESULTS: Almond-related energy bioaccessibility was 78.5%±3.1%, with an average energy loss of 21.2%±3.1% (40.6 kcal/d in the full-dose almond phase). Bioaccessibility of energy and fat from the diet as a whole was significantly less with almond consumption (in both half- and full-dose phases) compared with the control. Bioaccessibility of fat was significantly different between treatment phases (P<.001) and on average lower by 5.1% and 6.3% in the half- and full-dose almond phases, respectively, compared with the control phase. Energy bioaccessibility was significantly different between the treatment phases (P=.02), decreasing by approximately 2% with the inclusion of the full dose of almonds compared with the control. CONCLUSION: Energy content of almonds may not be as bioaccessible in individuals with hyperlipidemia as predicted by Atwater factors, as suggested by the increased fat excretion with almond intake compared with the control. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00507520.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.318 · 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