Dietary Lysine Requirement of Women Over 60 Years Estimated Using Indicator Amino Acid Oxidation (IAAO) Technique, Is Not Different From Current Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goals of the current study were to 1) define the lysine requirement in female adults >60years using the indicator amino acid oxidation method (IAAO) method with L-[1–13C]phenylalanine as the indicator and to 2) compare the derived estimate to our previous estimates in young women done in both luteal and follicular phase of the mensural cycle. Sixteen healthy women (>60 years) were randomly assigned to receive 3 to 7 lysine intakes from 10 to 80 mg. kg−1. d−1. Subjects were adapted to a standard liquid diet providing 1.0 g. kg−1.d−1protein and adequate energy, for 2 days, with indicator oxidation measurements on day 3. The rate of release of13CO2 from the oxidation of L-[1–13C]phenylalanine was measured in breath. A two-phase linear mixed effect model, and parametric bootstrap was used to determine the mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the lysine requirement. The overlap of the 95% CI between the older and younger women were used to compare the requirement estimates. The null hypothesis was accepted if the interval contained zero. The mean and upper 95% CI of the lysine requirement of older women was 29 and 33 mg.kg−1.d−1respectively. This was not different from our previous estimate of 30.9 mg.kg−1.d−1for young women in the follicular phase of the mensural cycle. However, it was lower than our previous estimate of 37.7 mg.kg−1.d−1derived during the luteal phase of the mensural cycle. This is the first study to report on the lysine requirement in older women >60 years. Although the estimate in older women is not different from current recommendations derived in young men, the results suggest that lysine requirement in young and older women may differ based on mensural cycle phase. 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".