Global mean potassium intake: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis
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
PURPOSE: Increasing potassium intake, especially in populations with low potassium intake and high sodium intake, has emerged as an important population-level intervention to reduce cardiovascular events. Current guideline recommendations, such as those made by the World Health Organisation, recommend a potassium intake of > 3.5 g/day. We sought to determine summary estimates for mean potassium intake and sodium/potassium (Na/K) ratio in different regions of the world. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We identified 104 studies, that included 98 nationally representative surveys and 6 multi-national studies. To account for missingness and incomparability of data, a Bayesian hierarchical imputation model was applied to estimating summary estimates of mean dietary potassium intake (primary outcome) and sodium/potassium ratio. RESULTS: Overall, 104 studies from 52 countries were included (n = 1,640,664). Mean global potassium intake was 2.25 g/day (57 mmol/day) (95% credible interval (CI) 2.05-2.44 g/day), with highest intakes in Eastern and Western Europe (mean intake 3.53g/day, 95% CI 3.05-4.01 g/day and 3.29 g/day, 95% CI 3.13-3.47 g/day, respectively) and lowest intakes in East Asia (mean intake 1.89 g/day; 95% CI 1.55-2.25 g/day). Approximately 31% (95% CI, 30-41%) of global population included have an estimated potassium intake > 2.5 g/day, with 14% (95% CI 11-17%) above 3.5 g/day. CONCLUSION: Global mean potassium intake (2.25 g/day) falls below current guideline recommended intake level of > 3.5 g/day, with only 14% (95% CI 11-17%) of the global population achieving guideline-target mean intake. There was considerable regional variation, with lowest mean potassium intake reported in Asia, and highest intake in Eastern and Western Europe.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it