High sodium intake increases blood pressure and risk of kidney disease. From the Science of Salt: A regularly updated systematic review of salt and health outcomes (August 2016 to March 2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this review was to identify, summarize, and critically appraise studies on dietary salt and health outcomes that were published from August 2016 to March 2017. The search strategy was adapted from a previous systematic review on dietary salt and health. Studies that meet standards for methodological quality criteria and eligible health outcomes are reported in detailed critical appraisals. Overall, 47 studies were identified and are summarized in this review. Two studies assessed all-cause or disease-specific mortality outcomes, eight studies assessed morbidity reduction-related outcomes, three studies assessed outcomes related to symptoms/quality of life/functional status, 25 studies assessed blood pressure (BP) outcomes and other clinically relevant surrogate outcomes, and nine studies assessed physiologic surrogate outcomes. Eight of these studies met the criteria for outcomes and methodological quality and underwent detailed critical appraisals and commentary. Five of these studies found adverse effects of salt intake on health outcomes (BP; death due to kidney disease and initiation of dialysis; total kidney volume and composite of kidney function; composite of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events including, and risk of mortality); one study reported the benefits of salt restriction in chronic BP and two studies reported neutral results (BP and risk of CKD). Overall, these articles confirm the negative effects of excessive sodium intake on 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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".