MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1898326957 · doi:10.1111/jch.12716

The Impact of Using Different Methods to Assess Completeness of 24‐Hour Urine Collection on Estimating Dietary Sodium

2015· article· en· W1898326957 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineUrineUrine collection deviceSodiumCompleteness (order theory)ChromatographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard for population-based surveillance of dietary sodium intake is 24-hour urine testing; however, this may be affected by incomplete urine collection. The impact of different indirect methods of assessing completeness of collection on estimated sodium ingestion has not been established. The authors enlisted 507 participants from an existing community study in 2009 to collect 24-hour urine samples. Several methods of assessing completeness of urine collection were tested. Mean sodium intake varied between 3648 mg/24 h and 7210 mg/24 h depending on the method used. Excluding urine samples collected for longer or shorter than 24 hours increased the estimated urine sodium excretion, even when corrections for the variation in timed collections were applied. Until an accurate method of indirectly assessing completeness of urine collection is identified, the gold standard of administering para-aminobenzoic acid is recommended. Efforts to ensure participants collect complete urine samples are also warranted.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.400
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.562
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.000 · 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