Diet quality and all-cause mortality among US adults, estimated from National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2003–2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assessed the ability of the Prime Diet Quality Score (PDQS) to predict mortality in the US population and compared its predictiveness with that of the Healthy Eating Index-2015 (HEI-2015). DESIGN: PDQS and HEI-2015 scores were derived using two 24-h recalls and converted to quintiles. Mortality data were obtained from the 2015 Public-Use Linked Mortality File. Associations between diet quality and all-cause mortality were evaluated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, and predictive performance of the two metrics was compared using a Wald test of equality of coefficients with both scores in a single model. Finally, we evaluated associations between individual metric components and mortality. SETTING: A prospective analysis of the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) data. PARTICIPANTS: Five-thousand five hundred and twenty-five participants from three survey cycles (2003-2008) in the NHANES aged 40 years and over. RESULTS: Over the 51 248 person-years of follow-up (mean: 9·2 years), 767 deaths were recorded. In multivariable models, hazard ratios between the highest and lowest quintiles of diet quality scores were 0·70 (95 % CI 0·51, 0·96, Ptrend = 0·03) for the PDQS and 0·77 (95 % CI 0·57, 1·03, Ptrend = 0·20) for the HEI-2015. The PDQS and HEI-2015 were similarly good predictors of total mortality (Pdifference = 0·88). CONCLUSION: Among US adults, better diet quality measured by the PDQS was associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality. Given that the PDQS is simpler to calculate than the HEI-2015, it should be evaluated further for use as a diet quality metric globally.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".