MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329424726 · doi:10.1097/hco.0000000000000079

Blood pressure reduction by reducing sodium intake in the population

2014· review· en· W2329424726 on OpenAlexaff
Koon Teo, Andrew Mente

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObservational studySodiumBlood pressureEpidemiologyPopulationExcretionInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPhysiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Current guidelines, based on extrapolations of observational studies or short-term relatively small clinical trials, recommend that daily sodium intake should be around 2 g/day or less. The assumption is that the relationship between sodium consumption and blood pressure (BP) levels is linear in all populations. Recent development suggests this may not be correct. We reviewed the literature on the association between sodium reduction and BP lowering, and preliminary data on 100,000 individuals from the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study on sodium excretion and the association of sodium excretion with BP in general populations from 17 countries in five continents, with a focus on major subgroups. RECENT FINDINGS: Earlier observational studies have shown inconsistencies in their findings which were not addressed by the recommendations. The PURE results showed that associations between sodium intake and BP were not linear; proportionally, higher BP was found in individuals with higher sodium intake compared with those with lower sodium intake, in individuals with hypertension compared to those without hypertension, and in older individuals compared with younger individuals. SUMMARY: Recent data do not support the recommendation that all populations should reduce their sodium intake to one low level.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.314 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207