MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046896320 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuz061

Definitions, regulations, and new frontiers for dietary fiber and whole grains

2019· review· en· W3046896320 on OpenAlex
Renee Korczak, Joanne Slavin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhole grainsDietary fiberMedicineCalorieRefined grainsEnvironmental healthDietary Reference IntakeFiberNutrientProspective cohort studyFood scienceBiologyInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this article is to review the definitions and regulations for dietary fiber and whole grains worldwide and to discuss barriers to meeting recommended intake levels. Plant foods, such as whole grains, that are rich in dietary fiber are universally recommended in dietary guidance. Foods rich in dietary fiber are recommended for all, but dietary recommendations for whole grains and dietary fiber depend on definitions and regulations. Official recommendations for dietary fiber in the United States and Canada are denoted by dietary reference intakes (DRIs), which are developed by the Institute of Medicine. An adequate intake (AI) for dietary fiber was based on prospective cohort studies of dietary fiber intake and cardiovascular disease risk that found 14 grams of dietary fiber per 1000 kilocalories protected against cardiovascular disease (CVD). This value was used to set AIs for dietary fiber across the life cycle based on recommended calorie intakes. Actual intakes of dietary fiber are generally about half of the recommended levels. Recommendations for whole grain intake are equally challenging, as definitions for whole grain foods are needed to set recommendations. The 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that half of all grain servings be whole grains, but usual intakes are generally less than 1 serving per day, rather than the recommended 3 servings per day. Scientific support for whole grain recommendations is based on the same prospective cohort studies and links to CVD protection used to inform dietary fiber guidance. Thus, dietary fiber is a recommended nutrient and whole grains are a recommended dietary pattern in dietary guidance in North America and around the world. Challenges for attaining recommended intakes of dietary fiber and whole grains include low-carbohydrate diets, low-gluten diets, and public health recommendations to avoid processed foods.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.677
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.231
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.120 · 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