The International Consortium for Quality Research on Dietary Sodium/Salt (TRUE) position statement on the use of 24‐hour, spot, and short duration (<24 hours) timed urine collections to assess dietary sodium intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The International Consortium for Quality Research on Dietary Sodium/Salt (TRUE) is a coalition of intentional and national health and scientific organizations formed because of concerns low-quality research methods were creating controversy regarding dietary salt reduction. One of the main sources of controversy is believed related to errors in estimating sodium intake with urine studies. The recommendations and positions in this manuscript were generated following a series of systematic reviews and analyses by experts in hypertension, nutrition, statistics, and dietary sodium. To assess the population's current 24-hour dietary sodium ingestion, single complete 24-hour urine samples, collected over a series of days from a representative population sample, were recommended. To accurately estimate usual dietary sodium at the individual level, at least 3 non-consecutive complete 24-hour urine collections obtained over a series of days that reflect the usual short-term variations in dietary pattern were recommended. Multiple 24-hour urine collections over several years were recommended to estimate an individual's usual long-term sodium intake. The role of single spot or short duration timed urine collections in assessing population average sodium intake requires more research. Single or multiple spot or short duration timed urine collections are not recommended for assessing an individual's sodium intake especially in relationship to health outcomes. The recommendations should be applied by scientific review committees, granting agencies, editors and journal reviewers, investigators, policymakers, and those developing and creating dietary sodium recommendations. Low-quality research on dietary sodium/salt should not be funded, conducted, or published.
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 | 0.589 | 0.649 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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".