MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165495023 · doi:10.3390/nu13061752

The Impact of Nutrition on the COVID-19 Pandemic and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Nutrition

2021· review· en· W3165495023 on OpenAlexafffund
Delfin Rodriguez–Leyva, Grant N. Pierce

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthSocial isolationCoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)EpidemiologyPopulationIsolation (microbiology)Social distancePsychological intervention2019-20 coronavirus outbreakMedicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)BiologyVirologyOutbreakBioinformaticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had significant morbidity, mortality, social and financial implications for the global population. Despite this knowledge, we still know very little about how COVID-19 infection affects quality of life resulting from changes in nutritional behaviour and, conversely, how nutrition could modulate the epidemiology of COVID-19. In addition, the social isolation most have experienced due to the regulations imposed by governments during the COVID-19 pandemic may have also had effects on our nutritional behaviour. It is possible that nutritional interventions may have effects on the incidence of COVID-19 infection and mortality rates. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current status of research on the topic of nutrition as it relates to the COVID-19 pandemic.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.300 · 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

Citations72
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207