Blood Chromium Levels and Their Association with Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes, and Depression: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2015–2016
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, there is no global consensus about the essentiality of dietary chromium. To provide evidence to this debate, an examination of blood chromium levels and common chronic health conditions was undertaken. Using a subsample from the 2015−2016 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (n = 2894; 40 years+), chi-square and binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine blood chromium levels (0.7−28.0 vs. <0.7 µg/L) and their associations with cardiovascular diseases (CVDs; self-report), diabetes mellitus (DM; glycohemoglobin ≥5.7%), and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ≥5), while controlling for socio-demographic (age/sex/income/education/relationship status) and health-related (red blood cell folate/medications/co-morbidities/body mass index (BMI)/substance use) factors. The sample was almost evenly distributed between men and women (n = 1391, 48.1% (men); n = 1503, 51.9% (women)). The prevalence estimates of low blood chromium levels tended to be higher among those with CVDs (47.4−47.6%) and DM (50.0−51.6%). Comparisons between those with low vs. normal blood chromium levels indicate men have increased odds of CVDs (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.22−2.85, p < 0.001) and DM (aOR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.32−2.83, p < 0.001) and lower odds of depression (aOR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.22−0.77, p < 0.05). Dietary chromium may be important in the prevention and management of CVDs and DM for men. Continued exploration of chromium’s role in chronic diseases, including differences by biological factors, is needed.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it