Global Comparison of Nutrient Reference Values, Current Intakes, and Intake Assessment Methods for Sodium among the Adult Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excess sodium intake is a risk factor for non-communicable diseases (NCDs), such as cardiovascular diseases and hypertension. Therefore, many countries have set nutrient reference values for sodium, specifically for the prevention of NCDs, and intake is routinely monitored by nutrition surveys. In this review, we aimed to compare the global nutrient reference values and national intakes of sodium, along with the methods of intake assessment used. Data were obtained for Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, the UK, the US, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), where information was accessible online in English or Japanese. We collected the following information regarding sodium intake: the term used for reference values to prevent NCDs; year when reference values were established or revised; reference values to prevent NCDs; target NCDs; designation of nutrition survey; method for estimating intake; and average intake. The reference values ranged from 2,000 mg (Australia and EFSA) to 2,953 mg (Japan). Sodium intake ranged from 2,431 mg (Australia) to 3,958 mg (Japan). Out of seven countries/institutions, five used dietary assessment, and two used sodium urinary excretion for estimating dietary sodium intake. Among the dietary assessment methods, the 24-h dietary recall was most frequently used. National sodium intake exceeded the reference values in all countries, and reduction of sodium intake remains a global challenge.
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 | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".