Dietary sodium intake among Canadian adults with and without hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Almost 30% of hypertension among Canadians may be attributed to excess dietary sodium. METHODS: We examined the average sodium intake of Canadians aged 30 years and over, with and without hypertension, by age, sex and diabetes status using 24-hour recall data from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2, Nutrition. We compared absolute (crude) average sodium intake levels of those with and without hypertension to the 2009 Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) guidelines and adjusted average sodium intake between those with and without hypertension. RESULTS: Both those with and without diagnosed hypertension display average sodium intakes well above the 1500 mg/day recommended by the 2009 CHEP guidelines (2950 mg/day and 3175 mg/day, respectively). After confounding adjustment, those with hypertension have significantly higher average sodium intake (p = .0124). Stratified subgroup analyses found the average sodium intake among those with hypertension was higher for men between 30 and 49 years old (p = .0265), women between 50 and 69 years old (p = .0083) and those without diabetes (p = .0071) when compared to their counterparts without hypertension. CONCLUSION: Better approaches are needed to reduce sodium intake in hypertension patients, as well as the general population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".