Science of Salt: A regularly updated systematic review of salt and health outcomes studies (April to October 2018)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Science of Salt reviews identify, summarize, and critically appraise published studies on dietary salt and health outcomes according to pre-specified methods. This review covers the period April 3 to October 30, 2018. Here, nineteen studies that fit pre-specified criteria for review and summary are included. Three of these, one prospective cohort study, one randomized controlled trial, and a post hoc analysis of the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) sodium trial fulfilled the quality criteria for detailed critical appraisal, including risk of bias assessment, and commentary. Two trials demonstrated a positive association between salt intake and blood pressure. In a cohort of older Italians, increased risk of total mortality was observed with salt intake less than ~16 g/d (6300 mg sodium/d) at baseline; no association existed for incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) or CVD mortality. The paucity of published studies which met our criteria for methodological quality is of concern.
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 | 0.021 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".