Socio-economic status and vitamin/ mineral supplement use in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The link between diet quality and socio-economic status (SES) may extend to the use of vitamin/ mineral supplements. This article examines factors related to Canadians' use of such supplements, with emphasis on associations with household income and education. DATA AND METHODS: The data are from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition (n = 35,107). The prevalence of vitamin/mineral supplement consumption during the previous month was recorded. Supplement use at the national level was estimated by age/sex groups, SES and chronic conditions. Logistic regression was used to determine significant associations between socio-economic factors and vitamin/mineral supplement use. Estimates of usual calcium intake from food and from food plus supplements were obtained using SIDE-IML. RESULTS: The prevalence of supplement use was significantly higher in females than in males in all age groups 14 or older. Age, being female, high household income and education, and being food-secure were positively associated with supplement use. Supplement use substantially increased the percentage of the population, particularly older adults, meeting the Adequate Intake level for calcium. INTERPRETATION: The reported use of vitamin/mineral supplements varies by age, sex and SES. The relatively low prevalence of use among Canadians of low SES is similar to findings from American studies. These individuals, already at risk for inadequate intake from food, do not make up the difference with vitamin/ mineral supplements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".