MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291017859 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2022.970364

The health effects of soy: A reference guide for health professionals

2022· review· en· W4291017859 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Messina, Alison M. Duncan, Virginia Messina, Heidi Lynch, Jessica Kiel, John W. Erdman

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth professionalsSOY ISOFLAVONESSoy proteinHealth benefitsPerspective (graphical)IsoflavonesMedicinePublic relationsMarketingKnowledge managementPsychologyBusinessComputer sciencePolitical scienceHealth careTraditional medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soy is a hotly debated and widely discussed topic in the field of nutrition. However, health practitioners may be ill-equipped to counsel clients and patients about the use of soyfoods because of the enormous, and often contradictory, amount of research that has been published over the past 30 years. As interest in plant-based diets increases, there will be increased pressure for practitioners to gain a working knowledge of this area. The purpose of this review is to provide concise literature summaries (400-500 words) along with a short perspective on the current state of knowledge of a wide range of topics related to soy, from the cholesterol-lowering effects of soy protein to the impact of isoflavones on breast cancer risk. In addition to the literature summaries, general background information on soyfoods, soy protein, and isoflavones is provided. This analysis can serve as a tool for health professionals to be used when discussing soyfoods with their clients and patients.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.030

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations61
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207