MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023183552 · doi:10.1079/bjn20051514

Nutritional correlates of dietary glycaemic index: new aspects from a population perspective

2005· article· en· W2023183552 on OpenAlexaff
Mandy Schulz, Angela D. Liese, Elizabeth J. Mayer‐Davis, Ralph B. D’Agostino, Fang Fang, Karen C. Sparks, Thomas M.S. Wolever

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal Of Nutrition · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsGlycaemic indexMedicineFood scienceFood groupPopulationGlycemic indexType 2 diabetesRefined grainsDiabetes mellitusBiologyEnvironmental healthEndocrinologyWhole grains

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role of dietary glycaemic index (GI) and glycaemic load (GL) in disease aetiology is of increasing interest. However, nutritional factors related to dietary GI and GL are not well understood from a population perspective. We aimed to investigate the relation ship between GI and GL and dietary intake at the food and nutrient level. Study subjects were 1071 non-diabetic adults from the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study, Exam I, 1992-4. Usual dietary intake was assessed with a 114-item modified Block food frequency questionnaire. Published GI values were assigned to food line items. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted. Intake of white bread, beer, meats and fries/fried potatoes was positively associated with average GI, as was fat, starch and alcohol intake (before and after energy adjustment). Intake of fruits and low-fat milk was inversely associated with GI, as were intakes of mono- and disaccharides, and fibre. GL was positively correlated with carbohydrate foods and inversely with non-carbohydrate foods. Gender-specific regression models identified eight food groups explaining 63% (men) and 55% (women) total GI variation after adjusting for demographics; 70% of variation in GL was explained by eleven (men) and nine (women) food groups, respectively. Although the GI of a food is an indicator of the ability of carbohydrates to raise blood glucose, dietary GI, unlike GL, appears to reflect more dimensions of diet than just carbohydrates, such as the combination of foods consumed. This may have implications for the interpretation of dietary GI in epidemiologic studies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.689
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations67
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal Of NutritionSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207