Differences in the nutritional content of baby and toddler foods with front-of-package nutrition claims issued by manufacturers <i>v</i>. governments/health organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nutritional information panels are required on all packaged food products in the USA, yet are perceived as difficult to use by consumers. Nutritional symbols have been developed by various groups to assist consumers in making healthier food purchases. Different nutritional criteria are used depending on the authorizing body of these symbols. The present study assesses the nutrient profile of baby and toddler foods in light of their accompanying nutritional symbols. DESIGN: Kruskal-Wallis and χ 2 tests were used to assess differences in the nutritional content of products based on the presence and issuing body of nutritional symbols. SETTING: Nine grocery, drug and department stores in Philadelphia, PA, USA. SUBJECTS: Two hundred and forty packaged baby and toddler foods. RESULTS: Products whose nutritional symbol was issued by government/health professionals contained significantly more Ca (P = 0·002), fibre (P = 0·001), protein (P = 0·005), vitamin A (P = 0·011), vitamin C (P < 0·001) and Zn (P < 0·001) and less sugar (P = 0·004) per serving than products without a nutritional symbol and products whose nutritional symbol was issued by the manufacturer. CONCLUSIONS: Products with a nutritional symbol issued by government/health professionals were healthier than foods with nutritional symbols issued by the manufacturer directly and foods with no nutritional symbols.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".