Twenty‐Four–Hour Diet recall and Diet records compared with 24‐hour urinary excretion to predict an individual’s sodium consumption: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic literature review aimed to investigate whether 24 hour diet recall and diet records are reliable and valid ways to measure usual dietary sodium intake compared with 24 hour urinary assessment. We searched electronic databases Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Lilacs, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library using pre-defined terms Studies were eligible for inclusion if they assessed adult humans in free-living settings, and if they included dietary assessment and 24 hours urinary collection for assessment of sodium intake in the same participants. Studies that included populations with an active disease state that might interfere with normal sodium metabolism were excluded. Results of 20 studies using 24 hour diet recall recall (including 14 validation studies) and 10 studies using food records (including six validation studies) are included in this review. Correlations between estimates from dietary assessment and urinary excretion ranged from 0.16 to 0.72 for 24 hour diet recall, and 0.11 to 0.49 for food diaries. Bland-Altman analysis in two studies of 24 hour diet recall showed poor agreement with 24 hours urinary sodium excretion. These results show that 24 hour diet recall and diet records inaccurately measure dietary sodium intake in individuals compared with the gold standard 24 hours urinary excretion. Validation studies of dietary assessment methods should include multiple days of assessment and 24 hours urine collection, use relevant food composition databases and Bland-Altman methods of analysis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".