Protein requirement of elderly women determined using the indicator amino acid oxidation technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study was designed to determine the protein requirement of elderly women age 80 y and older using the indicator amino acid oxidation technique. Design Eight Caucasian women aged 80–87 y (83 ± 3 y and BMI 27 ± 4 kg/m2, mean ± SD) completed a 3‐day protocol 7 times. Each woman consumed an adaptation diet for 2 days and on day 3 consumed a crystalline amino acid mixture with one of 7 protein intakes (0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9, 1.2, 1.5 or 1.8 g·kg‐1·day‐1) tested randomly. Group‐based protein requirement was assessed using a biphase linear regression model of protein intake and L‐[1–13C] phenylalanine oxidation. The break point, at which there was no further decline in the 13C rate of appearance in breath, represented the mean protein requirement. Results The mean protein requirement was 1.06 g·kg‐1·day‐1 (standard error of the group mean estimate: 0.095). This requirement is 61 % higher than the current Estimated Average Requirement (EAR) for adults of 0.66 g·kg‐1·day‐1 based on nitrogen balance. Conclusion This study is the first to assess the dietary protein requirement of women in their 80s and the first to use the indicator amino acid oxidation technique with elderly participants. These findings bring into question the accuracy and adequacy of the current nitrogen balance based EAR for elderly women. Support: NIH RR025761 ; Bilsland Fellowship from Purdue Univ. Grant Funding Source : NIH RR025761 ; Bilsland Fellowship from Purdue Univ
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".