MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211244620 · doi:10.3390/nu14030708

Consumption of Ultra-Processed Foods Is Associated with Free Sugars Intake in the Canadian Population

2022· article· en· W4211244620 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Virginie Hamel, Milena Nardocci, Nadia Flexner, Jodi T. Bernstein, Mary R. L’Abbé, Jean‐Claude Moubarac

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicConsumer Attitudes and Food Labeling
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsEnvironmental healthFree sugarPopulationConsumption (sociology)SugarCalorieMedicinePublic healthFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Excess sugar consumption can lead to noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) such as type 2 diabetes. Increasingly, ultra-processed foods (UPF) are suspected to be great contributors to free sugars intake in the population's diet. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate the association between UPF consumption and free sugars intake in the Canadian population. We used data from one 24 h-recall of the nationally representative 2015 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition (CCHS). Food items were classified according to the NOVA system, and to estimate free sugars intake, we used the University of Toronto's Food Label Information Program (FLIP) 2017 database. Results: Almost half of the population's energy intake (45.7%) came from UPF. On average, 221.5 kcal/day came from free sugars, and most of these calories (71.5%) came from UPF. Public health policies aiming to decrease consumption of UPF should be a priority considering their important contribution to sugar intake in the population.

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 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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicConsumer Attitudes and Food LabelingFrench-language works237,207