MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416692521 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2025.2592885

A scoping review of the application of the indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method for assessing the metabolic availability of amino acids in legumes

2025· article· en· W4416692521 on OpenAlexaff
Chai Jia Law, See Meng Lim, Nurul Fatin Malek Rivan, Mohd Noor Hidayat Adenan, Suzana Shahar, Bee Koon Poh, Glenda Courtney‐Martin, Hasnah Haron

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmino acidLysineMethionineProtein qualityOxidation reductionAmino acid analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legumes are good source of plant-based protein, but understanding of their amino acid metabolic availability (MA) remains limited. The indicator amino acid oxidation (IAAO) method is a relatively recent approach for determining the protein quality of foods that is not yet as widely adopted as traditional methods such as fecal and ileal digestibility. This scoping review examined current literature on assessment of metabolic availability (MA) of indispensable amino acids in legumes using IAAO method. Relevant studies published in English, Malay, and Chinese were identified through three databases. Of the ten studies included, three were conducted on animals, while the remaining seven involved human participants, specifically school-aged children and adult men. Legumes examined included peas, faba beans, Amarillo peas, soy protein, chickpeas, lentils, black beans, and cereal-legume-based vegetarian meals. The MA of lysine in legumes was generally high (>80%), whereas methionine showed relatively lower availability (<80%). Although the application of IAAO is still limited in MA determination, IAAO is a valuable and reliable tool for understanding protein quality in plant-based diets and can guide strategies to enhance nutritional outcomes, particularly in populations relying heavily on legumes as a primary protein source.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0220.023
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207