The World Hypertension League Science of Salt: a regularly updated systematic review of salt and health outcomes studies (Sept 2019 to Dec 2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Hypertension League Science of Salt health outcomes review series highlights high-quality publications relating to salt intake and health outcomes. This review uses a standardised method, outlined in previous reviews and based on methods developed by WHO, to identify and critically appraise published articles on dietary salt intake and health outcomes. We identified 41 articles published between September 2019 to December 2020. Amongst these, two studies met the pre-specified methodological quality criteria for critical appraisal. They were prospective cohort studies and examined physical performance and composite renal outcomes as health outcomes. Both found an association between increased/higher sodium intake and poorer health outcomes. Few studies meet criteria for high-quality methods. This review adds further evidence that dietary salt reduction has health benefits and strengthens evidence relating to health outcomes other than blood pressure and cardiovascular disease. We observe that most studies on dietary sodium do not have adequate methodology to reliably assess sodium intake and its association with health outcomes.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".