Contribution of 100% Fruit Juice to Micronutrient Intakes in the United States, United Kingdom and Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The contribution of 100% fruit juice (FJ) to the total daily intakes of energy, sugars, and select vitamins and minerals and to the recommended dietary allowances (RDAs) or adequate intake (AI) of these micronutrients was assessed in individuals reporting the consumption of 100% FJ in the national dietary intake surveys of the United States (U.S.; n = 8661), the United Kingdom (UK; n = 2546) and Brazil (n = 34,003). Associations of 100% FJ intake with the odds of being overweight or obese also were assessed. Data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2013–2014), the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey (2012–2014), and Brazil’s Pesquisa de Orçamentos Familiares (2008–2009) were used, and all analyses were limited to individuals reporting consumption of 100% FJ on at least one day of the dietary intake survey. Approximately 34%, 37%, and 42% of individuals surveyed reported the consumption of 100% FJ on at least one day of the dietary intake survey in the U.S., UK, and Brazil, respectively, and the average daily intakes of 100% FJ were 184 g, 130 g, and 249 g, respectively. Across the 3 countries, 100% FJ contributed to 3–6% of total energy intakes, 12–31% of total sugar intakes, 21–54% of total vitamin C intakes, 1–12% of total vitamin A intakes, 4–15% of total folate intakes, 7–17% of total potassium intakes, 2–7% of total calcium intakes, and 4–12% of total magnesium intakes. In a multivariate logistic regression model, juice intake was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of being overweight or obese in UK adults (OR = 0.79; 0.63, 0.99), and significant increases in the odds of being overweight or obese in UK children (OR = 1.16; 1.01, 1.33) and Brazilian adults (OR = 1.04; 1.00, 1.09). Nutrient contributions of 100% FJ vary according to regional intake levels. In all three countries studied, 100% FJ contributed to more than 5% of the RDAs for vitamin C and folate. In the U.S. and Brazil, 100% FJ contributed to more than 5% of the RDA for magnesium and more than 5% of the AI for potassium.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".