MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Energy Expenditure in Humans: Principles, Methods, and Changes Throughout the Life Course

2024· review· en· W4396999193 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Fernández‐Verdejo, Guillermo Sánchez‐Delgado, Éric Ravussin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Nutrition · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnergy expenditureDoubly labeled waterEnergy (signal processing)Basal metabolic rateEnergy metabolismSpecific dynamic actionLife course approachBiologyEndocrinologyPsychologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Humans require energy to sustain their daily activities throughout their lives. This narrative review aims to ( a ) summarize principles and methods for studying human energy expenditure, ( b ) discuss the main determinants of energy expenditure, and ( c ) discuss the changes in energy expenditure throughout the human life course. Total daily energy expenditure is mainly composed of resting energy expenditure, physical activity energy expenditure, and the thermic effect of food. Total daily energy expenditure and its components are estimated using variations of the indirect calorimetry method. The relative contributions of organs and tissues determine the energy expenditure under different physiological conditions. Evidence shows that energy expenditure varies along the human life course, at least in part due to changes in body composition, the mass and specific metabolic rates of organs and tissues, and levels of physical activity. This information is crucial to estimate human energy requirements for maintaining health throughout the life course.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of NutritionSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207