Reevaluation of the protein requirement in Chinese elderly adults without sarcopenia with the indicator amino acid oxidation technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is now generally believed that elderly may have slightly higher dietary protein requirements than those of the young-middle-aged adults. We have previously conducted related studies by the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) technique, but more research data are needed to revise the protein requirements of the elderly. The main objective was to reevaluate the dietary protein requirements of healthy Chinese adults (65–80 years) without sarcopenia by using the IAAO technique. Nine healthy adult men and seven healthy adult women participated in the study, with protein intakes ranging from 0·1 to 1·8 g/(kg·d). Diets that delivered energy at a 1·5 resting energy expenditure were isocaloric. The amounts of phenylalanine and tyrosine needed to remain constant for each protein dosage. By applying a nonlinear mixed-effects model analysis on the F13CO2 data, which revealed a breakpoint in F13CO2 in response to graded protein intakes, the mean protein requirement was calculated. The mean estimated average requirement (EAR) for healthy elderly Chinese adults without sarcopenia was determined to be 0·94 g/(kg·d). The protein recommended nutrient intake (RNI) determined using various derivation approaches ranged from 1·13 to 1·36 g/(kg·d). The EAR for Chinese adults without sarcopenia aged 65–80 years in this study is 6·8 % higher than the current recommended EAR (0·88 g/(kg·d)). The RNI derived using various derivation approaches are all greater than the current RNI (0·98 g/(kg·d)). This trial was registered with the Chinese clinical trial registry as ChiCTR2200061382.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".