MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3042048038 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaa067

Dietary recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic

2020· review· en· W3042048038 on OpenAlexaff
Christianne de Faria Coelho‐Ravagnani, Flávia Campos Corgosinho, Fabiane La Flor Ziegler Sanches, Carla M. Prado, Alessandro Laviano, João Felipe Mota

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoUniversidade Federal de Mato Grosso do SulCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsVirologyMedicineEnvironmental healthOutbreakInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal nutrition can improve well-being and might mitigate the risk and morbidity associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This review summarizes nutritional guidelines to support dietary counseling provided by dietitians and health-related professionals. The majority of documents encouraged the consumption of fruits, vegetables, and whole grain foods. Thirty-one percent of the guidelines highlighted the importance of minerals and vitamins such as zinc and vitamins C, A, and D to maintain a well-functioning immune system. Dietary supplementation has not been linked to COVID-19 prevention. However, supplementation with vitamins C and D, as well as with zinc and selenium, was highlighted as potentially beneficial for individuals with, or at risk of, respiratory viral infections or for those in whom nutrient deficiency is detected. There was no convincing evidence that food or food packaging is associated with the transmission of COVID-19, but good hygiene practices for handling and preparing foods were recommended. No changes to breastfeeding recommendations have been made, even in women diagnosed with COVID-19.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.285
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.159 · 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
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

Citations264
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207