Metabolic profile of healthy, normal-weight adults with low satiety responsiveness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to characterize the metabolic profile of healthy, normal-weight adults presenting with low satiety responsiveness. Individuals were categorized with low or high satiety responsiveness (LSR and HSR, respectively) based on the satiety quotient (SQ), a marker of satiety responsiveness, which was calculated following two isocaloric breakfast test meals offered while participants were inside the whole-room indirect calorimeter (WRIC): 1) North American: 55 % carbohydrate, 15 % protein, and 30 % fat; 2) High-protein: 31 % carbohydrate, 43 % protein, and 26 % fat. Following the North American breakfast, participants continued receiving a diet resembling the North American dietary pattern while inside the WRIC for 32 consecutive hours where the following outcome measures were assessed: energy metabolism components, metabolic blood markers, and appetite sensations. Forty-three participants were included; 13 were classified as LSR (n = 3 females; n = 10 males), n = 16 as HSR (n = 10 females; n = 6 males), and n = 14 were uncategorized. Compared with HSR, individuals with LSR had higher body weight (5.4 ± 2.5 kg; P = 0.042) and waist circumference (LSR: 77.5 (7.6) cm; HSR: 70.7 (5.2) cm; P = 0.012). Participants with LSR presented with higher total energy expenditure (184 ± 85 kcal/day; P = 0.040) and carbohydrate oxidation rate (34 ± 13 g/day; P = 0.015). Moreover, individuals in the LSR category presented with weakened satiety response to the meals when compared to those with HSR. Our primary findings were that, compared to individuals with HSR, those in the LSR category exhibited differences in their metabolic profile. The long-term impact on body weight and overall health should be assessed in further studies.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".