MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

US and Canada Joint Effort for Dietary Reference Intake Updates

2017· article· en· W2954761421 on OpenAlexaffabout
Janet de Jesus, David M. Klurfeld, Christopher J. Lynch, Stephen P.J. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)CommissionWorking groupAgency (philosophy)MedicineWork (physics)Dietary Reference IntakeSystematic reviewScientific evidenceEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceMEDLINEEngineeringNutrientLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Representatives from the US and Canadian Government will present updates from the Joint US and Canada Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) Working Group on activities conducted to work toward updating the sodium and potassium DRIs. The Governments of the United States and Canada have jointly undertaken the development of the Dietary Reference Intakes since the mid‐1990s. Federal DRI committees from each country work collaboratively to identify DRI needs, prioritize nutrient reviews and advance work to resolve any methodological issues that could impede new reviews. The commission of a systematic review for nutrients under review is now an integral part of the DRI process. Recently the DRI Working Group sponsored an evidence review by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) on sodium and potassium to inform the update of the sodium and potassium DRIs by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). The AHRQ review will be completed in 2017. Additionally, the DRI steering committees jointly decided that prior to undertaking a nutrient review, the scientific framework for setting DRIs needed to be adapted to include a framework for including data on chronic disease risk reduction. Thus, a scientific expert panel was convened to review and critically evaluate evidentiary, dose response, and process issues related to the use of chronic disease endpoints and develop options for their incorporation into future DRI reviews. The Joint US/Canadian‐sponsored Working Group's report ‘Options for Basing DRIs on Chronic Disease Endpoints’ will inform the NAM committee that will develop guiding principles for inclusion of chronic disease endpoints to be used by committees setting future DRIs. In summary, the US and Canadian Governments are working collaboratively to adapt the methods for updating the DRIs utilizing rigorous systematic evidence reviews and a chronic disease endpoint framework. Support or Funding Information United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Agriculture, and Health Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.136
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.200
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.719

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1360.200
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0300.030
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0120.008
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.017

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→