MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320464768 · doi:10.1093/ajh/hpt148

Extreme Sodium Reductions for the Entire Population: Zealotry or Evidence Based?

2013· article· en· W2320464768 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Mente, Martin O’Donnell, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSodiumPopulationInternal medicineCardiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should Americans eat less salt? “Yes” has been the advice from several professional organizations. But are such sweeping public health recommendatations based on good science or are they based on an overzealous extrapolation of limited data? Currently, the average consumption of sodium (Na) in the United States is about 3.5g/day. Some guidelines recommend reducing the Na consumption of the entire US population to <2.3g/day, and some to even 1.5g/day. Is this 35%–65% reduction in Na consumption in millions of Americans necessary, safe, and feasible? The crux of the argument is that the blood pressure (BP)–lowering effect of a reduction in Na intake (to low intake levels) will reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD). But is this supported by incontrovertible evidence, or is it in large part conjecture? One of the most influential studies was INTERSALT, which reported a weak relationship between Na and BP (0.94/0.03mm Hg per gram of Na).1 An equally well-conducted study from Scotland published side by side showed no significant association between Na excretion and BP,2 yet received little attention, illustrating the biases with which papers are selectively emphasized. The DASH trial in 2001,3 which has been a primary basis for the current American Heart Association guidelines and the 2010 National Dietary Guidelines, is a “proof of concept” study as to whether changes in multiple aspects of diet (including Na reduction) would lower BP under controlled situations (all meals were provided to the participants and their spouses) over 5 weeks. This trial demonstrated that large reductions in Na intake (1.8g/day) lowered BP (by 4.9/2.6mm Hg), but the effects were more modest (3.0/1.6mm Hg) in those who consumed an otherwise healthy diet, which also lowers BP. Further, the average intake of potassium in the DASH participants was low (1.56g/day) compared with the typical US diet (2.6g/d),4 and this may have enhanced the effects of Na reduction.5,6 A study of 18 months of intervention (e.g., Trials of Hypertension Prevention) where foods were not replaced showed smaller reductions in Na (1.0g/day) and a proportionately smaller reduction in systolic BP of 1.7 mmHg.7

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.143
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HypertensionSame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207