Hypothesis: Dietary Iodine Intake in the Etiology of Cardiovascular Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews evidence suggesting that iodine deficiency can have deleterious effects on the cardiovascular system, and correspondingly, that a higher iodine intake may benefit cardiovascular function. In recent years, public health bodies have aggressively promoted sodium restriction as a means of reducing hypertension and the risk of cardiovascular disease. These inducements have led to a general decline in iodine intake in many developed countries. For example, a United States national health survey conducted in the early 1970s observed that 1 in 40 individuals had urinary iodine levels suggestive of moderate or greater iodine deficiency; twenty years later, moderate to severe iodine deficiency was observed in 1 in 9 participants. Regional iodine intake has been shown to be associated with the prevalence of hypothyroidism and hyperthyroidism, where autoimmune hypothyroidism is the more common of the two in regions with moderate to high iodine intake. Both of these thyroid abnormalities have been shown to negatively affect cardiovascular function. Selenium, an important antioxidant in the thyroid and involved in the metabolism of iodine-containing thyroid hormones, may play an interactive role in the development of these thyroid irregularities, and in turn, cardiovascular disease. Iodine and iodine-rich foods have long been used as a treatment for hypertension and cardiovascular disease; yet, modern randomized studies examining the effects of iodine on cardiovascular disease have not been carried out. The time has come for investigations of sodium, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease to also consider the adverse effects that may result from mild or greater iodine deficiency.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".