Can Leucine Supplementation Improve Frailty Index Scores?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarcopenia and frailty are important conditions that become increasingly prevalent with age. There is partial overlap between the two conditions, especially in terms of the physical aspects of the frailty phenotype: low grip strength, gait speed, and muscle mass. This study examined whether administration of the essential branched-chain amino acid leucine, besides improving sarcopenia, may reduce frailty assessed by frailty index (FI) in older institutionalized people living in nursing homes. We conducted a secondary analysis of a placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind design study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03831399). The study included fifty males and females aged 65 and over who were living in nursing homes and did not have dementia. The participants were randomized to a parallel group intervention of 13 weeks’ duration, with a daily intake of leucine (6 g/day) or placebo (lactose, 6 g/day). The outcome of this study was to evaluate whether there was a change in the level of a 95 item FI compared to the baseline and to compare the effect of the leucine group versus the placebo group. A significant inverse correlation was found between FI and performance of the activities of daily life, cognitive function, gait and balance, muscle function parameters, and nutritional status (p < 0.001 in all cases). There were no statistically significant differences in FI levels at baseline (placebo group FI 0.27 ± 0.08 and leucine group FI 0.27 ± 0.10) and at the 13 week follow-up (placebo group FI 0.28 ± 0.10 and leucine group FI 0.28 ± 0.09). There were also no significant differences between the leucine and placebo groups in the mean FI difference between baseline and follow-up (p = 0.316, Cohen’s d: 0.04). This pilot study showed that a nutritional supplementation with leucine did not significantly modify the frailty index in older nursing home residents.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".