Amino acid requirements of older adults: time to consider separate recommendations from young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: to present recent data on amino acid requirements in older adults determined by the minimally invasive indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method, and to compare them to current recommendations derived from young adult data. RECENT FINDINGS: using the minimally invasive IAAO method we estimated the requirements for leucine, lysine and Sulphur amino acids (SAA) in older adults. The leucine requirement for older adults is more than twice the current recommendations. A sex effect on SAA requirement demonstrates an increased requirement in males compared to females which represent a >70% higher estimate for older males compared to current recommendations. For lysine, there is both an age and sex effect with older females >70 years requiring close to 50% more lysine than current recommendations. SUMMARY: Amino acid requirements for older adults derived using the minimally invasive IAAO method demonstrated a higher requirement for key indispensable amino acids in older adults compared to current recommendation. Since amino acid requirements are a necessary consideration when assessing protein quality, these results highlight the need for a separation of the amino acid recommendations between young and older adults for improved assessment and prescription of diets for older adults.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".