Sex Differences in Diet Quality and Nutrient Intake in Adults Living With Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recognition is growing that sex impacts outcomes in kidney disease. Women tend to have slower kidney function decline and better controlled risk factors pre-dialysis but the same mortality rates as men once dialysis starts. In the general population, women tend to have higher diet quality scores. Little is known about how sex differences impact diet quality and how this may explain known sex differences in this population. Diet History Questionnaire-3 (DHQ3) was administered to adults attending the Grey Nuns Hospital in Edmonton Alberta pre-dialysis (CKD; n = 46) or Hemodialysis (HD; n = 65) clinics. Healthy Eating Index (HEI) was used to assess diet quality. Nutrient intake was assessed per kg of body weight and adjusted for energy intake (i.e., per 1000kcal). Outcomes were assessed with subjects divided into sex category and clinic (CKD vs HD). Two tailed t-tests were used to test for sex differences in parametric variables. HEI scores were compared to age-matched general population values and sorted into below or above the comparator. Chi-square test were used to test for statistical significance in categorical variables. 110 participants were included, 51 females and 60 males. There was no sex difference in mean HEI between females (61.2 ± 9.7) and males (59.9 ± 8.8; p = 0.464). 57% of females and 60% of males had HEI scores below mean age-matched HEI scores for the general population and no sex differences were observed. Pre-dialysis females had higher whole fruit composite scores vs pre-dialysis males (females 4.7 ± 0.7; males 3.8 ± 1.6, p = 0.015). Males consumed more total and mg/kg body weight protein, potassium, phosphorus and sodium than females (all p < 0.05); however, when intakes were adjusted for energy intake, there was no difference. In this cohort of patients with CKD there were no observed differences in diet quality score between males and females. The majority of CKD patients had lower diet quality scores than the general population which might explain, to some extent, the few sex differences observed in this population. However, the higher whole fruit composite scores in pre-dialysis women may to some degree explain sex differences observed in pre-dialysis kidney disease. Further studies exploring dietary intake and sex differences in this population appear warranted. None.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".