Food intake biomarkers for green leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, and stem vegetables: a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous studies acknowledged the importance of an adequate vegetable consumption for human health. However, current methods to estimate vegetable intake are often prone to measurement errors due to self-reporting and/or insufficient detail. More objective intake biomarkers for vegetables, using biological specimens, are preferred. The only concentration biomarkers currently available are blood carotenoids and vitamin C, covering total fruit and vegetable intake. Identification of biomarkers for specific vegetables is needed for a better understanding of their relative importance for human health. Within the FoodBAll Project under the Joint Programming Initiative "A Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life", an ambitious action was undertaken to identify candidate intake biomarkers for all major food groups consumed in Europe by systematically reviewing the existent literature. This study describes the review on candidate biomarkers of food intake (BFIs) for leafy, bulb, and stem vegetables, which was conducted within PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for studies published through March 2019. RESULTS: In total, 65 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility for leafy vegetables, and 6 full-text articles were screened for bulb and stem vegetables. Putative BFIs were identified for spinach, lettuce, endive, asparagus, artichoke, and celery, but not for rocket salad. However, after critical evaluation through a validation scheme developed by the FoodBAll consortium, none of the putative biomarkers appeared to be a promising BFI. The food chemistry data indicate that some candidate BFIs may be revealed by further studies. CONCLUSION: Future randomized controlled feeding studies combined with observational studies, applying a non-targeted metabolomics approach, are needed in order to identify valuable BFIs for the intake of leafy, bulb, and stem vegetables.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".