Amino acid oxidation methods to determine amino acid requirements: do we require lengthy adaptation periods?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Determination of indispensable amino acid (IAA) requirements necessitates a range of intakes of the test IAA and monitoring of the physiological response. Short-term methods are the most feasible for studying multiple intake levels in the same individual. Carbon oxidation methods measure the excretion of 13CO2 in breath from a labelled amino acid (AA) in response to varying intakes of the test AA following a period of adaptation. However, the length of adaptation to each AA intake level has been a source of debate and disagreement among researchers. The assertion of the minimally invasive indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique is that IAA requirements can be estimated after only a few hours (8 h) of adaptation to each test AA intake, suggesting that adaptation occurs rapidly in response to dietary adjustments. On the contrary, the assertion of most other techniques is that 6–7 d of adaptation is required when determining IAA needs. It has even been argued that a minimum of two weeks is needed to achieve complete adaptation. This review explores evidence regarding AA oxidation methods and whether long periods of adaptation to test IAA levels are necessary when estimating IAA requirements. It was found that the consumption of experimental diets containing lower test IAA intake for greater than 7 d violates the terms of a successful adaptive response. While there is some evidence that short-term 8 h IAAO is not different among different test amino acid intakes up to 7 d, it is unclear whether it impacts assessment of IAA requirements.
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 | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".