MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529625939 · doi:10.1111/jch.12909

The Science of Salt: A Regularly Updated Systematic Review of the Implementation of Salt Reduction Interventions (November 2015 to February 2016)

2016· review· en· W2529625939 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy Trieu, Rachael McLean, Claire Johnson, Joseph Alvin Santos, Norm R.C. Campbell, Jacqui Webster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionSalt (chemistry)Reduction (mathematics)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this periodic review was to identify, summarize, and appraise studies relating to the implementation of salt reduction strategies that were retrieved between November 2015 and February 2016. From the established MEDLINE search, 56 studies were identified as relevant to the implementation of salt reduction initiatives. Detailed appraisal was performed on seven studies that evaluated the impact of salt reduction interventions. While study quality varied, all had one or more risks related to bias. There was consistent evidence, from three studies, demonstrating that setting-based structural interventions to improve the nutritional composition of foods were effective in reducing salt but mixed evidence in relation to the effectiveness of behavioral interventions. The development of an evaluation guidance framework that supports scientific rigor and external validity would aid future design and interpretation of studies evaluating salt reduction interventions, particularly for low-resource countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0260.018
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.503
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicSodium Intake and HealthFrench-language works237,207