MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1897667690

Systematic review of studies evaluating urinary iodine concentration as a predictor of 24-hour urinary iodine excretion for estimating population iodine intake.

2015· review· en· W1897667690 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Ji, Tammy Lu, Omar Dary, Branka Legetić, Norm R.C. Campbell, Francesco P. Cappuccio

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrineUrine collection deviceMedicinePopulationIodineMorningExcretionCochrane LibraryConcordance correlation coefficientIodine deficiencyUrinary systemUrologyMeta-analysisInternal medicineStatisticsChemistryEnvironmental healthMathematicsThyroid
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the usefulness of "spot" urine iodine concentrations (UICs) in predicting 24-hour urine iodine excretion (UIE) for estimating average population iodine intake. METHODS: An electronic literature search was conducted for articles published through 19 May 2013 in MEDLINE (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1980), and the Cochrane Library (from 1993) using the terms "urinary excretion (timed or spot or random) and (24 h or 24 hour), iodine (iodine deficiency), iodine (intake)," and "urine (timed, spot, random, 24-hour)." Full-text articles about studies that examined > 40 healthy human subjects and measured UIE using the 24-hour urine collection method and UIC and/or UIE using one alternative method (spot (random), timed, and "overnight" (first morning urine), fasting or not fasting) were selected and reviewed. RESULTS: The review included data from 1 434 participants across the six studies that met the inclusion criteria. The main statistical methods for comparing data from the 24-hour urine collections with the values obtained from the alternative method(s) were either regression (β) or correlation (r) coefficients and concordance analysis through Bland-Altman plots. The urine samples collected using the alternative methods were subject to greater intra-individual and inter-individual variability than the 24-hour urine collections. There was a wide range in coefficient values for the comparisons between 24-hour URE measured in 24-hour urine collection and 24-hour UIE estimated using the alternative sampling methods. No alternative sampling method (spot, timed, or "overnight") was appropriate for estimating 24-hour UIE. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this systematic review suggest current data on UICs as a means of predicting 24-hour UIE for estimating population sodium intake are inadequate and highlight the need for further methodological investigations.

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)0.058
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.058
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.009
Bibliometrics0.0150.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicThyroid Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207