MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W112664781 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.21.5.a683

READY TO EAT CEREAL (RTEC) CONSUMPTION POSITIVELY AFFECTS TOTAL DAILY NUTRIENT INTAKES IN HISPANIC CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS.

2007· article· en· W112664781 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa A. Nicklas, Celeste A Clark, Donna Thede, Susan S. Cho, Chin Eun Chung, Nancy Auestad

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsNutrasourceKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNiacinNutrientNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyMealMedicineDietary fiberEnvironmental healthFood scienceAnimal scienceBiologyInternal medicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To examine the impact of breakfast meal pattern on nutrient intake status of Hispanic children and adolescents (N=3220), we compared breakfast skippers (S), RTEC and other breakfast consumers using 24 hour recall data from the 1999–2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Our data indicated that RTEC breakfast consumers had significantly (p<0.05) higher mean daily intakes of dietary fiber and 11 vitamins and minerals, including vitamins A, B 1 , B 2 , B 6 , folic acid, niacin, iron and zinc, as compared to breakfast skippers. Among the groups compared, RTEC consumers showed the highest intake levels of short fall nutrients (calcium, magnesium, potassium, and fiber), while reporting the lowest % energy intake from total fat in all age groups. Daily intakes of vitamins B 12 , C, E, and % energy intake from saturated fat were not different among the groups. Breakfast consumers in general reported higher energy intakes than skippers. image These data suggest that RTE cereals can be important sources of these key nutrients in Hispanic children and adolescents.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet→French-language works237,207→