Blood pressure reduction by reducing sodium intake in the population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".