ArticleFood science & nutrition2020
Short-term GAA loading: Responders versus nonresponders analysis.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Near transfer to an unrelated N-back task mediates the effect of N-back working memory training on matrix reasoning.Nature human behaviour · 2022Pooled it
- Effects of six weeks of guanidinoacetic acid supplementation with and without creatine monohydrate on cognitive function and markers of health in healthy adults.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2026Trial
- Safety of Dietary Guanidinoacetic Acid: A Villain of a Good Guy?Nutrients · 2021Review
- Short-term GAA loading: Responders versus nonresponders analysis.Food science & nutrition · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dietary guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) has been suggested to be advantageous for favorable changes in tissue bioenergetics in terms of responder versus nonresponder performance, yet no studies so far explored the proportion of two distinct populations following short-term GAA intervention. A secondary analysis of previously completed guanidinoacetic acid (GAA) trials has been carried out in aim to classify individuals into responders and nonresponders using cut-off criteria for an increase in intramuscular creatine. A total of 30 individuals (mean age = 34.5 years, women 66.7%) who were supplemented with up to 3 g/day of GAA for at least 28 days with total muscle creatine evaluated using 1.5 T magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies were included in this examination. Pre-post measures included total creatine content (creatine plus phosphocreatine) determined from the quadriceps muscle, with participants were classified by arbitrary cut-off points in three categories, including responders (>10% increase in total creatine content at follow-up), quasi-responders (5%-10% increase), and nonresponders (<5% increase in total intramuscular creatine at postadministration). An average change in total creatine content after GAA supplementation was 22.9%, with 13.3% participants were categorized as nonresponders, 6.6% as quasi-responders, and 80.0% as responders (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.