State-level income inequality and the odds for meeting fruit and vegetable recommendations among US adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research indicates that income inequality is associated with risk for mortality, self-rated health status, chronic conditions, and health behavior, such as physical activity. However, little is known about the relationship between income inequality and dietary intake, which is a major risk factor for common chronic diseases including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and certain types of cancers. The objective of this study is to determine the association between US state income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumption among adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional data on 270,612 U.S. adults from the U.S. 2013 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System was used. Fruit and vegetable consumption was assessed from the six-item fruit and vegetable frequency questionnaire, which is part of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Multilevel modeling was used to determine whether US state-level income inequality (measured by the z-transformation of the Gini coefficient) was associated with fruit and vegetable consumption adjusting for individual-level and state-level covariates. RESULTS: In comparison to men, women were more likely to consume fruits and vegetables ≥5 times daily, fruits ≥2 times daily, vegetables ≥3 times of daily, and less likely to consume fruit juice daily. Among both men and women, a standard deviation increase in Gini coefficient was associated with an increase in consuming fruit juice daily (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = 1.03, 1.11). However, among women, a standard deviation increase in Gini coefficient was associated with a decreased likelihood in meeting daily recommended levels of both fruits and vegetables (OR = 0.93; 0.87-0.99), fruits only (OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99) and vegetables only (OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: This study is one of the first to show the relationship between income inequality and fruit and vegetable consumption among U.S. adults empirically. Women's health is more likely to be detrimentally affected when living in a state with higher income inequality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".