Poultry Consumption and Human Health: How Much Is Really Known? A Systematically Searched Scoping Review and Research Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review was conducted to systematically search and chronicle scientific literature pertinent to poultry intake and human health. The protocol (uploaded to Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/2k7bj/) was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Articles with observational and experimental research, narrative and systematic reviews, and meta-analyses were included. Among 13,141 articles identified, 525 met inclusion criteria. Among these 525 articles, 212 focused on cancer morbidity and mortality; 41 on cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality; 52 on CVD risk factors; 32 on type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) morbidity and mortality; 33 on T2DM risk factors; and 42 on body weight and body composition. An "Other" category (181 articles) included nutrient status, psychological well-being/mental health, cognition, microbiome, chronic kidney disease, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, skin disorders, and fertility, among others. Among the 525 included articles, 366 were observational, 64 were experimental, and 76 were reviews and meta-analyses. Eighty-three percent of articles focused on adults or older adults. A paucity of research exists to support poultry as health-promoting foods, with most research only indirectly assessing poultry intake compared with other foods of interest (e.g., red meats or plant-based protein foods). No randomized controlled trials and only 1% of OBS assessed the influence of processed poultry intake on human health. In the future, the relative health effects of consuming poultry will be compared with a widening array of traditional and new protein-rich food products, necessitating the need for research to assess poultry as foods of choice. Science and health professionals, the poultry industry, and the public will benefit from new observational and experimental research to address cutting-edge scientific, public policy, and consumer topics pertinent to poultry intake and human 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".