Lower diet glycaemic index in African than South Asian men in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Trinidad and Tobago (T&T), diabetes is over two times more common in South Asian (SA) than African (AF) men, with a smaller difference in women. In the USA, high diet glycaemic index (GI) was associated with increased risk of developing diabetes. In T&T, dietary intake data are unavailable. The objective of this study was to conduct a pilot survey of the dietary habits of 50 AF and 50 SA subjects in order to develop a valid nutrition survey instrument for use in T&T. We hypothesized that diet GI would be lower in AF than SA subjects. We collected 24 h dietary recalls from a sample of adults from T&T (26 AF and 33 SA women, and 17 AF and 25 SA men), excluding subjects of mixed or other ethnic backgrounds and those with diabetes or other chronic disorders. AF women were of similar age, but taller and heavier than SA women. There was no significant difference in diet between AF and SA women. AF men were taller than SA men, but of similar age (34 +/- 2 years versus 33 +/- 2 years) and body mass index (24.1 +/- 0.8 kg/m2 versus 23.3 +/- 0.9 kg/m2, respectively). Intakes of energy, fat, protein, carbohydrate and fibre, and diet glycaemic load did not differ significantly, but AF men had a lower diet GI than SA men (56 +/- 1 versus 59 +/- 1, P < 0.05). Although not conclusive, these results are consistent with previous data suggesting that diet GI may contribute to the development of type 2 diabetes. The data collected during this survey will be useful in developing a food frequency questionnaire for use in T&T to allow this hypothesis to be tested more rigorously in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".