Sociodemographic, health and lifestyle characteristics reported by discrete groups of adult dietary supplement users in Alberta, Canada: findings from The Tomorrow Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which differences in sociodemographic, dietary and lifestyle characteristics exist between users of different types of dietary supplements and supplement non-users. DESIGN: We analysed cross-sectional data obtained from self-administered questionnaires completed at baseline by participants in The Tomorrow Project; a prospective cohort study in Alberta, Canada. Participants who used at least one type of dietary supplement at least weekly in the year prior to questionnaire completion were defined as supplement users, while the remainder were classified as non-users. Seven discrete user categories were created: multivitamins (+/- minerals) only, specific nutritional supplements only, herbal/other supplements only, and all possible combinations. Differences in sociodemographic, dietary and lifestyle characteristics between different groups of supplement users and non-users were analysed using Rao-Scott chi2 tests and multinomial logistic regression. SUBJECTS AND SETTING: Subjects were 5,067 men and 7,439 women, aged 35-69 years, recruited by random digit dialling throughout Alberta. RESULTS: Supplement use was extensive in this study population (69.8 %). Users of herbal/other supplements only, and women who used multivitamins only, tended to report dietary and lifestyle characteristics that were not significantly different from non-users. In contrast, those who reported using a combination of multivitamins, specific nutritional and herbal/other supplements were more likely than non-users to report behaviours and characteristics consistent with current health guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Dichotomizing participants as supplement users or non-users is likely to mask further differences in sociodemographic, dietary and lifestyle characteristics among users of different types of supplements. This may have implications for analysis and interpretation of observational 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".