Percentage of ingested sodium excreted in 24‐hour urine collections: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
24 hr.urine sodium excretion is generally regarded as the 'gold' standard for assessing dietary sodium in population and epidemiological studies.This review examines the percentage of dietary sodium that is excreted in a 24 hr.urine collection.We systematically searched for all studies where a known and constant amount of dietary sodium was ingested for a minimum of 3 days and where sodium excretion in 24 hr.urine collections was measured.Studies with 'healthy' adult participants, or participants with health risks such as hypertension, were considered.5264 unique studies were identified in the search; 392 underwent a full-text review and 35 studies were included.The pooled estimate for the percentage dietary sodium excreted in urine was 92.8% (95% confidence interval 90.7, 95.0) with little to no differences in subgroup analyses.There was high heterogeneity between studies, indicating that caution is required in The Journal of Clinical Hypertension interpreting the average percentage excretion, however, lack of study methodological rigor is likely to have contributed to the high heterogeneity.Although the generally high variability in sodium intake indicates that results from a single 24 hr.urine collection should not be used to assess an individual's usual long-term sodium intake, this metaanalysis suggests that it is an appropriate method for assessing average dietary sodium in a healthy population or people with chronic stable health risks.
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 | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".