Systematic Review of Nutrient Profile Models Developed for Nutrition-Related Policies and Regulations Aimed at Noncommunicable Disease Prevention —An Update
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Nutrient profiling (NP) models are useful for characterizing the healthfulness of foods and for underpinning various nutrition-related public health strategies. Recently, there has been a rapid increase in the number of NP models developed by different organizations worldwide. A systematic review (SR) summarizing the key characteristics of NP models with applications in government-led nutrition policies was carried out in 2016 and published by Labonté et al. [4]. Given the continuous proliferation of NP models, the current study aimed to update this SR. Systematic searches were performed in databases of both the peer-reviewed (n = 7) and grey (n = 1) literature to identify publications related to NP published between May 2016 and September 2020. The full text of relevant publications was assessed independently by 2 reviewers to build a list of potential models. Each model was classified as "already identified in the original SR" or as "newly identified." The eligibility of the "newly identified" models, and of some models excluded from the previous SR because their details were not known at that time, were then assessed independently by 2 reviewers based on pre-established criteria. A total of 151 potential NP models were assessed for eligibility, of which 93 were "newly identified," 28 were originally excluded from the previous SR, and 30 were identified from additional online searches during the eligibility assessment stage. Twenty-six models met the inclusion criteria. Their most frequent applications were food labeling (n = 17) and regulation of food marketing to children (n = 7). They all included nutrients to limit, with sodium, saturated fat, and total sugars being the most frequently considered. Content or face validity testing was conducted for 11 (42%) of the included models. As NP models are increasingly used worldwide to support public health strategies, having an up-to-date resource listing them and detailing their characteristics is crucial. PROSPERO #CRD42021259041.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».