MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563597859 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuw046

What is the appropriate upper limit for added sugars consumption?

2016· review· en· W2563597859 on OpenAlex
James M. Rippe, John L. Sievenpiper, Kim‐Anne Lê, John S. White, Roger Clemens, Theodore J. Angelopoulos

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersPepsiCo
KeywordsObesityAdvisory committeeCalorieConsumption (sociology)Environmental healthNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseMedicineDiabetes mellitusScientific evidenceMetabolic syndromeHigh-fructose corn syrupDiseaseFatty liverGerontologyIntensive care medicineFood scienceEndocrinologyInternal medicinePolitical scienceSugarChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dramatic increases in obesity and diabetes have occurred worldwide over the past 30 years. Some investigators have suggested that these increases may be due, in part, to increased added sugars consumption. Several scientific organizations, including the World Health Organization, the Scientific Advisory Council on Nutrition, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee 2015, and the American Heart Association, have recommended significant restrictions on upper limits of sugars consumption. In this review, the scientific evidence related to sugars consumption and its putative link to various chronic conditions such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and the metabolic syndrome is examined. While it appears prudent to avoid excessive calories from sugars, the scientific basis for restrictive guidelines is far from settled.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.280 · 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