<i>Factors That Influence</i> Adherence to Calcium Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To identify barriers to following calcium recommendations among women with reduced bone mineral density (BMD), four focus group sessions were held with 30 postmenopausal women diagnosed with low BMD. Key concepts and themes were derived from transcripts. Participants were aware of the importance of calcium to their bone health, and were attempting to follow calcium intake recommendations. Several major themes associated with the ability to obtain adequate calcium were identified, including knowledge and confidence in actions, lifestyle and food preferences, and side effects and conflict with other health conditions. Participants reported that they obtained information in an effort to make a confident decision about calcium intake, but were easily confused by conflicting information. Daily routines and family and personal food preferences influenced dietary behaviours. Women indicated that side effects, particularly those associated with perceived lactose intolerance, caused them to restrict their calcium intake. Our data provide important insight into factors that women believe affect their ability to reach recommended calcium intakes. To optimize osteoporosis prevention and treatment, dietitians should focus on individualized patient assessments to identify factors affecting adherence to dietary calcium recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".