Talking with your patients about dietary cholesterol, diet and nutrition: best practices for family physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family physicians, as gatekeepers for the healthcare system, are at the forefront of detecting, diagnosing, and managing diseases. When it comes to coronary heart disease (CHD), patients expect them to be knowledgeable about ways to reduce CHD risk, such as through diet. Unfortunately, most family physicians have not received formal training about nutritional counselling for patients. There is also little time or incentive to educate patients about diet. RESULTS: This has led to the preference for referring patients for dietary counselling. However, when properly informed, family physicians can be effective conduits for dietary counselling. A Danish study showed that patients at risk for CHD who were given nutritional counselling by family physicians experienced significant weight loss, reduction of waist circumference and body mass index, a significant increase in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and a significant reduction in the risk of developing cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: By providing nutritional counselling, physicians can serve as a source for current information and help to correct long-held misperceptions that patients may have regarding diet.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".