MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010817258 · doi:10.15586/jptcp.v27i1.666

A narrative review of the effects of sugar-sweetened beverages on human health: A key global health issue

2020· review· en· W3010817258 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mainul Haque, Judy McKimm, Massimo Sartelli, Nandeeta Samad, Seraj Zohurul Haque, Muhamad Abu Bakar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)SugarNarrative reviewHuman healthNarrativeEnvironmental healthFood sciencePsychologyMedicineChemistryArtComputer scienceLiteratureComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The provision of healthy and safe food is vital for human health, and the addition of unnecessary sugars in foodstuffs is an important global issue, leading to multiple long- and short-term health issues and spiraling costs for individuals and governments alike. The negative effect of excess sugar consumption contributes to adverse health conditions, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, and poor oral health in both high and low resource settings. A key plank of governmental and health promotion bodies' nutritional guidance is to raise public awareness of "hidden" sugars, salt, and fats, such as found in processed foods and sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), and guide individuals to reduce their consumption. This rapid narrative review brings together some of the key issues identified in the literature around the consumption of SSBs, including patterns of consumption, the general impact on human health and nutrition, specific effects on oral health and the oral microbiome, and strategies to address over-consumption. The range of long-term adverse effects on health is often misunderstood or unknown by the public. However, some strategies have succeeded in reducing the consumption of SSBs, including public health strategies and interventions and the imposition of taxes or levies, and this article makes recommendations for action.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.704

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.556
Teacher spread0.442 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations45
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical PharmacologySame topicDiet, Metabolism, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207