How do infants acquire creatine?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing infant acquires creatine (CR) from mother's milk (or infant formula) and/or de novo synthesis. We have measured CR and guanidinoacetate (GAA) content of mother's milk and of a number of commonly used infant formulas. We used these data to estimate CR intake by breast‐fed and formula‐fed infants and to compare these estimates to the infants’ daily requirements for CR. Our data reveal that diet is a relatively minor source of CR in breast‐fed infants; therefore, the great bulk of new CR must be synthesized by the infant. The GAA concentration in milk and formulas is extremely low. The situation with formula‐fed infants is more complex. The CR levels in cows’ milk‐based formulas are higher than in mothers’ milk so that the burden of CR synthesis is less in infants fed these formulas than in breast‐fed infants. Soy‐based formulas, however, contain essentially no CR; infants fed these formulas must synthesize all of their CR endogenously. These data have implications for infants suffering from CR‐deficiency syndromes as well as for the burden that CR synthesis places on infants’ glycine, arginine, and methionine metabolism (the amino acids required for CR synthesis). Funded by CIHR
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".