Impact of quality of research on patient outcomes in the Institute of Medicine 2013 report on dietary sodium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2013 Institute of Medicine report entitled "Sodium Intake in Populations: Assessment of Evidence" found inconsistent evidence of health benefit with dietary sodium intake <2300 mg/d. Different studies reported benefit and harm of population dietary intake <2300 mg/d. The Institute of Medicine committee, however, did not assess whether the methodology used in each of the studies was appropriate to examine dietary sodium and health outcomes. This review investigates the association of methodological rigor and outcomes of studies in the Institute of Medicine report. For the 13 studies that met all methodological criteria, nine found a detrimental impact of high sodium consumption on health, one found a health benefit, and in three the effect was unclear (P = .068). For the 22 studies that failed to meet all criteria, 11 showed a detrimental impact, four a health benefit, and seven had unclear effects from increasing dietary sodium (P = .42).
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 | 0.125 | 0.369 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".