Is plasma vitamin C an appropriate biomarker of vitamin C intake? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the primary source of dietary vitamin C is fruit and to some extent vegetables, the plasma level of vitamin C has been considered a good surrogate or predictor of vitamin C intake by fruit and vegetable consumption. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the relationship between dietary vitamin C intakes measured by different dietary methods and plasma levels of vitamin C. METHOD: We searched the literature up to May 2006 through the OVID interface: MEDLINE (from 1960) and EMBASE (from 1988). We also reviewed the reference lists in the articles, reviews, and textbooks retrieved. A total of 26 studies were selected and their results were combined using meta-analytic techniques with random-effect model approach. RESULTS: The overall result of this study showed a positive correlation coefficient between Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) and biomarker (r = 0.35 for "both" genders, 0.39 for females, and 0.46 for males). Also the correlation between Dietary Recalls (DR)/diary and biomarker was 0.46 for "both" genders, 0.44 for females, and 0.36 for males. An overall correlation of 0.39 was found when using the weight record method. Adjusting for energy intake improved the observed correlation for FFQ from 0.31 to 0.41. In addition, we compared the correlation for smokers and non-smokers for both genders (FFQ: for non-smoker r = 0.45, adjusted for smoking r = 0.33). CONCLUSION: Our findings show that FFQ and DR/diary have a moderate relationship with plasma vitamin C. The correlation may be affected/influenced by the presence of external factors such as vitamin bioavailability, absorption condition, stress and food processing and storage time, or by error in reporting vitamin C intake.
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 | 0.025 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".