MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413129745 · doi:10.1111/acel.70191

Experimental Evidence Against Taurine Deficiency as a Driver of Aging in Humans

2025· article· en· W4413129745 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Marcangeli, Marina Cefis, Rami Hammad, Jordan Granet, Jean‐Philippe Leduc‐Gaudet, Pierrette Gaudreau, Mylène Aubertin‐Leheudre, Marc Bélanger, Richard Robitaille, José A. Morais, Gilles Gouspillou

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Cell · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAldose Reductase and Taurine
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in RehabilitationUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityChristie (Canada)Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresQuebec Rehabilitation Research NetworkUniversité du Québec à MontréalGroup for Research in Decision AnalysisInstitut Universitaire de Gériatrie de Montréal
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTaurineBiologyHealthy agingEndocrinologyInternal medicineGerontologyBiochemistryMedicineAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taurine deficiency was recently proposed as a driver of aging in various species, including humans. To test this hypothesis, we assessed whether circulating taurine was associated with aging and physical performance in 137 physically inactive and physically active men aged 20-93. No association between circulating taurine levels and age, muscle mass, strength, physical performance, or mitochondrial function was observed, thereby challenging the implication of taurine deficiency as a primary driver of aging in humans.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging CellSame topicAldose Reductase and TaurineFrench-language works237,207