MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752768092 · doi:10.3390/foods6090075

Examining the Relationship between Free Sugars and Calorie Contents in Canadian Prepacked Foods and Beverages

2017· article· en· W2752768092 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jodi T. Bernstein, Wendy Lou, Mary R. L’Abbé

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoCanadian Stroke Network
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Food scienceCalorieSugarEnvironmental healthFood groupNutrition transitionNutrientMedicineGeographyChemistryObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To align with broader public health initiatives, reformulation of products to be lower in sugars requires interventions that also aim to reduce calorie contents. Currently available foods and beverages with a range of nutrient levels can be used to project successful reformulation opportunities. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between free sugars and calorie levels in Canadian prepackaged foods and beverages. This study was a cross-sectional analysis of the University of Toronto’s 2013 Food Label Database, limited to major sources of total sugar intake in Canada (n = 6755). Penalized B-spline regression modelling was used to examine the relationship between free sugar levels (g/100 g or 100 mL) and caloric density (kcal/100 g or 10mL), by subcategory. Significant relationships were observed for only 3 of 5 beverage subcategories and for 14 of 32 food subcategories. Most subcategories demonstrated a positive trend with varying magnitude, however, results were not consistent across related subcategories (e.g., dairy-based products). Findings highlight potential areas of concern for reformulation, and the need for innovative solutions to ensure free sugars are reduced in products within the context of improving overall nutritional quality of the diet.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.932

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.185 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207