Consumption, Perceptions and Knowledge of Soy among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A large body of evidence supports a role for soy in the management of type 2 diabetes. However, little is known about the current consumption, perceptions and knowledge of soy among those living with type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this research was to explore the consumption, perceptions and knowledge of soy among adults with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A total of 202 adults with type 2 diabetes completed a detailed questionnaire designed to gather data about soy consumption, motivations for consuming soy, purchase locations for soy, methods of obtaining information about soy, barriers to soy consumption, as well as general health/lifestyle, medical and demographic information. RESULTS: Soy consumers were significantly more likely to be vegetarian, lactose intolerant and avoid cow's milk and significantly less likely to take medications, when compared to soy non-consumers. There were no significant differences between soy consumers and soy non-consumers in factors related to diabetes management. The prevalence of soy consumption was 19% and the majority of soy was consumed on a weekly basis and most often at breakfast. The three most commonly consumed soy products were soy beverage, tofu and roasted soy nuts and they were purchased most often from the grocery store. Soy consumers were significantly more aware of soy's potential health benefits, compared to soy non-consumers. More than half (63.8%) of soy non-consumers had consumed soy in the past and the top reason for no longer consuming soy was 'dislike taste, texture or appearance'. The most commonly reported barriers to soy consumption were being unsure of how to prepare soy, taste and texture. CONCLUSIONS: Although soy consumption was not predictive of factors related to diabetes management, valuable information was generated regarding patterns of soy consumption, motivations for and barriers to soy consumption, beliefs and knowledge about soy, and most common sources of information about soy. This information will be useful to numerous stakeholders including those who produce, market and sell soy, as well as those who disseminate health information about soy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".