The Science of Salt: Updating the evidence on global estimates of salt intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 study estimated national salt intake for 187 countries based on data available up to 2010. The purpose of this review was to identify studies that have measured salt intake in a nationally representative population using the 24-hour urine collection method since 2010, with a view to updating evidence on population salt intake globally. Studies published from January 2011 to September 2018 were searched for from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase databases using relevant terms. Studies that provided nationally representative estimates of salt intake among the healthy adult population based on the 24-hour urine collection were included. Measured salt intake was extracted and compared with the GBD estimates. Of the 115 identified studies assessed for eligibility, 13 studies were included: Four studies were from Europe, and one each from the United States, Canada, Benin, India, Samoa, Fiji, Barbados, Australia, and New Zealand. Mean daily salt intake ranged from 6.75 g/d in Barbados to 10.66 g/d in Portugal. Measured mean population salt intake in Italy, England, Canada, and Barbados was lower, and in Fiji, Samoa, and Benin was higher, in recent surveys compared to the GBD 2010 estimates. Despite global targets to reduce population salt intake, only 13 countries have published nationally representative salt intake data since the GBD 2010 study. In all countries, salt intake levels remain higher than the World Health Organization's recommendation, highlighting the need for additional global efforts to lower salt intake and monitor salt reduction strategies.
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 | 0.058 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".