MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203188556 · doi:10.1097/nt.0000000000000501

The Potential Role of Appetite in Mediating the Relationship of Whole Grains and Body Weight

2021· article· en· W3203188556 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Today · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyAppetiteBody weightRandomized controlled trialWeight lossMedicineWeight gainFood intakePsychologyObesityInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observational studies have consistently shown a relationship between whole grain (WG) intake and lower body weight and body weight gain over time. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not established a consistent causal relationship between WG intake and body weight. There are several plausible mechanisms for how WGs may be able to influence body weight, particularly through effects on appetite and energy intake. Recently, several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated WG intake and the relationship to body weight in observational studies and RCTs, as well as relationships to appetite and energy intake in RCTs. This review summarizes these recent findings and explores how modest changes in short-term appetite may impact energy intake and body weight in the long term. In addition, reasons for possible inconsistencies in RCTs and observational studies on body weight will be discussed, as well as the limitations of the current research and future opportunities to improve the relevance of the research for public health.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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