Ultra-Processed Food Availability and Noncommunicable Diseases: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultra-processed food (UPF) can be harmful to the population's health. To establish associations between UPF and health outcomes, food consumption can be assessed using availability data, such as purchase lists or household budget surveys. The aim of this systematic review was to search studies that related UPF availability with noncommunicable diseases or their risk factors. PRISMA guidelines were used. Searches were performed in PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus and Web of Science in February 2021. The search strategy included terms related to exposure (UPF) and outcomes (noncommunicable diseases and their risk factors). Studies that assessed only food consumption at an individual level and did not present health outcomes were excluded. Two reviewers conducted the selection process, and a third helped when disagreement occurred. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the studies' quality; 998 records were analyzed. All 11 eligible studies were ecological and assessed overweight and obesity as a health outcome, only one showed no positive association with UPF availability. Two studies included the prevalence of diabetes as an outcome, however no significant association was found with UPF availability. Studies relating UPF availability and health outcomes are focused on overweight and obesity. It is necessary to further explore the relationship between other health outcomes and UPF availability using purchase or sales data.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".