Tolerable amounts of amino acids for human supplementation: summary and lessons from published peer-reviewed studies
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amino acid supplementation may be indicated to correct for insufficient amino acid intake in healthy individuals, and in specific physiological or pathophysiological situations. However, there is a concern to not supplement beyond the tolerable upper intake level (UL) by determining parameters of no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) for each amino acid. Since the NOAEL and LOAEL values are at least one order of magnitude different when comparing the values obtained in rats and humans, the aim of this review is to evaluate to what extent the amino acid UL measured in the rat model, when referenced to the dietary usual consumption (UC) and dietary requirement (RQ) for indispensable amino acids, may be used as an approximation of the UL in humans. This review then compares the ratios of the NOAEL or LOAEL over UC and RQ in the rat model with the same ratios calculated in humans for the nine amino acids (arginine, serine, glycine, histidine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan) for which this comparison can be done. From the calculations made, it appears that for these 9 amino acids, the calculated ratios for rats and humans, although rather different for several amino acids, remains for all of them in the same order of magnitude. For tryptophan, tyrosine, and valine, the ratios calculated in rats are markedly different according to the sex of animals, raising the view that it may be also the case in humans.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it