nutrient Requirements and Interactions The Protein Quality of Some Enterai Products Is Inferior to That of Casein as Assessed by Rat Growth Methods and Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Scores1'2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Protein digestibility and quality of six enteral nutrition products sold in Canada were studied by rat balance and growth methods. Casein + L-methionine, 0.2 g/100 g diet (control) and six enterai products (freeze-dried) were fed as the sole source of protein in diets containing 8.61-9.12 g/100 g protein (N x 6.25) to weanling and 18-mo-old rats for a period of 2 and 1 wk, respectively. A protein-free diet was also included in the feeding studies to permit calculations of true protein digestibility and net protein ratio values. Values for true digestibility of protein as determined in old rats for the control diet and the test products were 95 and 89-93%, respectively. Compared with old rats, protein digestibility values were 5-7 percentage units higher in young rats. The 2-wk relative protein efficiency ratio values (42-56%) or the relative net protein ratio values (61-74%) of the enterai products were considerably lower compared to those of the control (100). Sup plementation of an enterai product with cysteine, cys teine + tryptophan, cysteine + threonine or cysteine + tryptophan + threonine caused significant improvement in protein quality; suggesting that the product was limiting in these three amino acids. The protein digesti bility-corrected amino acid scores for the enterai products were 43-46, 69-75 and 86-93 % by using whole egg, casein and the FAO-WHO (1991) pattern as reference proteins, respectively. The results indicate that these enterai products are inferior to casein in protein quality. J. Nutr. 124: 2223-2232, 1994. INDEXING KEY WORDS: •enterai nutritionals †¢ medical foods •protein digestibility •amino acid adequacy rats The use of liquid diets (enterai nutritionals or medical foods) is a continuing necessity in chronically institutionalized elderly people and in some hospitalized patients (Bell et al. 1991, Rudman and Feller 1989). There has been some concern about the amino acid adequacy of enterai products. Rudman et al. (1991) evaluated protein quality of a popular enterai product
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".