MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594122804 · doi:10.1111/jch.12970

The science of salt: A regularly updated systematic review of salt and health outcomes (December 2015–March 2016)

2017· review· en· W2594122804 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicSodium Intake and Health
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of CalgaryOntario Tech UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilVicHealthWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineObesityNonalcoholic fatty liver diseaseEnvironmental healthIncidence (geometry)Blood pressureDiseaseMEDLINEDietary saltCritical appraisalIntensive care medicineInternal medicineGerontologyAlternative medicineFatty liverPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this review was to identify, summarize, and critically appraise studies on dietary salt relating to health outcomes that were published from December 2015 to March 2016. The search strategy was adapted from a previous systematic review on dietary salt and health. Overall, 13 studies were included in the review: one study assessed cardiovascular events, nine studies assessed prevalence or incidence of blood pressure or hypertension, one study assessed kidney disease, and two studies assessed other health outcomes (obesity and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease). Four studies were selected for detailed appraisal and commentary. One study met the minimum methodologic criteria and found an increased risk associated with lower sodium intake in patients with heart failure. All other studies identified in this review demonstrated positive associations between dietary salt and adverse health outcomes.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.335
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.207 · 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