MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3131868728 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2020-0994

Dietary Reference Intakes based on chronic disease endpoints: outcomes from a case study workshop for omega 3’s EPA and DHA

2021· article· en· W3131868728 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Megan Racey, Amanda J MacFarlane, Susan E. Carlson, Ken D. Stark, Mélanie Plourde, Catherine J. Field, Allison A. Yates, George A. Wells, Andrea Grantham, Richard P. Bazinet, David W.L.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of TorontoCanadian Nutrition SocietyUniversity of OttawaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of WaterlooCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMcMaster UniversityUniversité de SherbrookeHealth Canada
FundersDanoneMead Johnson Nutrition
KeywordsDietary Reference IntakeMedicineNoveltyChronic diseaseDiseaseEnvironmental healthGerontologyIntensive care medicinePsychologyInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the focus on developing Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) based on chronic disease risk reduction and recent research for omega-3 long chain PUFA since the last DRI review, the Canadian Nutrition Society convened a panel of stakeholders for a 1-day workshop in late 2019. Attendees discussed the new NASEM guidelines for establishing DRI values based on chronic disease risk endpoints and the strength of current evidence for EPA and DHA as it relates to the new guidelines. Novelty: Summarizes evidence and expert opinions regarding the potential for reviewing DRI values for EPA and DHA and cardiovascular disease risk and early development.

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)0.053
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0530.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicFatty Acid Research and Health→French-language works237,207→