MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047563870 · doi:10.1111/jch.12442

Proposed Nomenclature for Salt Intake and for Reductions in Dietary Salt

2014· article· en· W2047563870 on OpenAlexaff
Norm R.C. Campbell, Ricardo Correa‐Rotter, Francesco P. Cappuccio, Jacqui Webster, Daniel T. Lackland, Bruce Neal, Graham A. MacGregor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConfusionSodiumPopulationInternal medicineDietary SodiumDietary saltSalt (chemistry)Animal scienceEnvironmental healthBiologyBlood pressureChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is considerable confusion about what ranges of dietary salt(a) could be considered low, normal, or high and also what ranges of reduction in dietary salt are small or large. The World Hypertension League with other organizations involved in dietary salt reduction have proposed a standardized nomenclature based on normal ancestral levels of salt intake and also on ranges of reduction in salt intake in clinical and population interventions. Low daily salt (sodium) intake where harm due to deficiency would be expected to occur is recommended to remain undefined because of inadequate research but likely <0.25 g (100 mg), normal (physiological) intake <2.5 g (1000 mg), recommended intake <5.0 g (2000 mg), high ≥5.0 g (2000 mg), very high >10 to 15 g (4000-6000 mg), and extremely high >15 g (6000 mg). Reductions in daily salt (sodium) intake are recommended to be called small if <2.5 g (1000 mg), moderate if 2.5 to 5.0 g (1000-2000 mg) and large if >5.0 g (2000 mg). Use of this nomenclature is likely to result in less confusion about salt intake and interventions to reduce dietary sodium.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207