The Dietary Intakes of Calcium and Bone Health Related Nutrients Among Individuals with and without Spinal Cord Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The purposes of this observational study were to: 1) describe and compare the intakes of nutrients related to bone health among a group of individuals with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) versus a group of age, gender and weight matched non–SCI peers; and 2) contrast the participant’s nutrient intakes against current dietary reference intakes (DRIs). Methods: Consenting participants included: 87 individuals with SCI (C2-T10 AIS A-D) aged 18-68 years and 85 non-SCI individuals. Participants’ nutrient intakes were determined using a 24-hour dietary recall. Participants were grouped by gender, age (19-30yrs, 31-50yrs, 51-68yrs), and impairment (SCI and non-SCI). Additionally, the nutrient intakes were contrasted with the DRIs parameters. Results: The range for mean calcium intakes across all age strata was 870-1087mg/day for SCI men and 848-1087mg/day for SCI women. The range for mean calcium intakes of the non-SCI participants were similar (men: 900-909mg/day; women: 796-1160mg/day). The majority of SCI and non-SCI men (64 - 86% of participants) in all age groups and SCI and non-SCI women in the 52-68 yrs group (72 and 73% of participants) did not meet the DRIs recommendation for calcium. Additionally many participants did not meet the DRIs recommendation for magnesium (38-55%) and potassium (71-95%) regardless of gender and impairment. The majority (60-70%) of participants consumed excessive amounts of sodium with the exception of non-SCI women. Conclusions: Dietary calcium intakes among SCI and non-SCI participants were not significantly different from each other. However, the dietary calcium intakes of both impairment groups were less than the recommended DRIs; SCI men and women are a target for nutritional interventions based on their calcium, magnesium potassium and sodium intakes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".