Almond Bioaccessibility in a Randomized Crossover Trial: Is a Calorie a Calorie?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Objective</p> <p>To investigate the energy and macronutrient bioaccessibility of almonds in individuals with hyperlipidemia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a previously reported randomized crossover trial, men and postmenopausal women with hyperlipidemia incorporated 3 isoenergetic supplements into a National Cholesterol Education Program Step 2 diet for 1 month each between September 20, 2000, and June 27, 2001. Supplements provided consisted of full-dose almonds (73±5 g/d), half-dose almonds (38±3 g/d) plus half-dose muffins, and full-dose muffins (control). Energy and macronutrients, including individual fatty acids, were measured in the dietary supplements and fecal samples using gas chromatography and Association of Official Analytical Chemists methods. Serum was measured for lipids and fatty acids. Bioaccessibility of energy and macronutrients from almond consumption was assessed from dietary intake (7-day food records) and fecal output.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Almond-related energy bioaccessibility was 78.5%±3.1%, with an average energy loss of 21.2%±3.1% (40.6 kcal/d in the full-dose almond phase). Bioaccessibility of energy and fat from the diet as a whole was significantly less with almond consumption (in both half- and full-dose phases) compared with the control. Bioaccessibility of fat was significantly different between treatment phases (P<.001) and on average lower by 5.1% and 6.3% in the half- and full-dose almond phases, respectively, compared with the control phase. Energy bioaccessibility was significantly different between the treatment phases (P=.02), decreasing by approximately 2% with the inclusion of the full dose of almonds compared with the control.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Energy content of almonds may not be as bioaccessible in individuals with hyperlipidemia as predicted by Atwater factors, as suggested by the increased fat excretion with almond intake compared with the control.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00507520.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it