S683 Association of Ultra-Processed Food and Unprocessed or Minimally Processed Food Consumption With Bowel Function Among US Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption has increased over the past few decades, raising concerns about potential negative impact on the gut microbiome. The pro-inflammatory microenvironment induced by UPFs may lead to disordered bowel function but may be mitigated by increasing consumption of unprocessed or minimally processed foods (UMPs). In this study, we aimed to assess the association between UPF and UMP consumption and bowel function among US adults and the outcomes for substituting UPFs with UMPs. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2005-2010). Dietary intake was evaluated by 2 24-hour dietary recalls. UPF and UMP intake (% of total gram/d) was derived based on the NOVA Classification. Constipation and diarrhea were defined according to Bristol Stool Form Scale. We used logistic regression to estimate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for constipation and diarrhea according to quartiles of UPF and UMP intake. Appropriate sample weights, stratification, and clustering were applied to account for the complex survey design. We performed substitution analysis to estimate the risk of constipation and diarrhea when replacing UPFs with an equivalent proportion of UMPs (Table 1). Results: Among 12,758 participants, there were 986 cases of constipation and 988 cases of diarrhea. The median UPF intake was 27% among total food intake in gram/d, while the median UMP intake was 66%. Participants who had greater UPF intake had higher risks of constipation (ORQ4 vs Q1, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.47-2.38) (Ptrend < 0.001) but not diarrhea (ORQ4 vs Q1, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.71-1.26) (Ptrend =0.99). Greater UMP intake was associated with a lower risk of constipation (ORQ4 vs Q1, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43-0.69) (Ptrend < 0.001) but not diarrhea (ORQ4 vs Q1, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.85-1.48) (Ptrend =0.72). In addition, replacing 50% of UPF weight in diet with an equivalent proportion of UMPs was associated with a lower risk of constipation (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81). Conclusion: Dietary UPF intake was associated with a higher risk of constipation but not diarrhea, while UMP consumption had an inverse association with constipation. Substituting UPFs with UMPs may reduce the risk of constipation. These findings could be explained by differences in dietary constituents such as low fiber content in UPFs. Altered gut microbiota may also play a role through modulating the metabolic activities in colon. Table 1. - Odds ratio and 95% CI for constipation and diarrhea according to quartiles of UPF and UMP consumption among US adults. NHANES 2005-2010 UPF consumption (% gram/d) Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 P trend Per 10% increase Median % gram/d (IQR) 10.3 (7.2-13.1) 20.8 (18.3-23.6) 33.1 (29.7-37.0) 54.6 (47.0-65.0) Constipation Cases/controls 222/2968 226/2963 250/2940 288/2901 Multivariable-adjusted modela 1 (reference) 1.18 (0.86-1.62) 1.59 (1.25-2.02) 1.87 (1.47-2.38) < 0.001 1.13 (1.09-1.17) Diarrhea Cases/controls 258/2932 244/2945 250/2940 236/2953 Multivariable-adjusted modela 1 (reference) 0.98 (0.75-1.28) 0.95 (0.73-1.22) 0.95 (0.71-1.26) 0.99 1.00 (0.95-1.05) UMP consumption (% gram/d) Quartile 1 Quartile 2 Quartile 3 Quartile 4 P trend Per 10% increase Median % gram/d (IQR) 37.0 (27.6-44.6) 59.2 (55.2-62.9) 72.6 (69.5-75.7) 84.8 (81.6-88.9) Constipation Cases/controls 259/2931 248/2941 238/2951 241/2949 Multivariable-adjusted modela 1 (reference) 0.87 (0.65-1.18) 0.70 (0.52-0.94) 0.54 (0.43-0.69) < 0.001 0.90 (0.86-0.93) Diarrhea Cases/controls 240/2950 242/2947 240/2949 266/2924 Multivariable-adjusted modela 1 (reference) 0.99 (0.73-1.35) 1.04 (0.80-1.36) 1.12 (0.85-1.48) 0.72 1.01 (0.96-1.06) Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; CI, confidence interval; IQR, interquartile range; UMP, unprocessed or minimally processed food; UPF, ultra-processed food. aAdjusted for age group, sex, race/ethnicity, educational attainment, income, smoking status, BMI, weight circumference, physical activity, alcohol drinking, and total energy intake.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".