Intake of Fatty Acids in General Populations Worldwide Does Not Meet Dietary Recommendations to Prevent Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review of Data from 40 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To systematically review data from different countries on population intakes of total fat, saturated fatty acids (SFA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), and to compare these to recommendations from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/the World Health Organization (FAO/WHO). METHODS: Data from national dietary surveys or population studies published from 1995 were searched via MEDLINE, Web of Science and websites of national public health institutes. RESULTS: Fatty acid intake data from 40 countries were included. Total fat intake ranged from 11.1 to 46.2 percent of energy intake (% E), SFA from 2.9 to 20.9% E and PUFA from 2.8 to 11.3% E. The mean intakes met the recommendation for total fat (20-35% E), SFA (<10% E) and PUFA (6-11% E) in 25, 11 and 20 countries, respectively. SFA intake correlated with total fat intake (r = 0.76, p < 0.01) but not with PUFA intake (r = 0.03, p = 0.84). Twenty-seven countries provided data on the distribution of fatty acids intake. In 18 of 27 countries, more than 50% of the population had SFA intakes >10% E and in 13 of 27 countries, the majority of the population had PUFA intakes <6% E. CONCLUSIONS: In many countries, the fatty acids intake of adults does not meet the levels that are recommended to prevent chronic diseases. The relation between SFA and PUFA intakes shows that lower intakes of SFA in the populations are not accompanied by higher intakes of PUFA, as is recommended for preventing coronary heart disease.
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 | 0.012 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".