MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Grain Foods Contribute Shortfall Nutrients in US Adults ≥19 Years of Age: Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2012

2016· article· en· W4389011199 on OpenAlexaff
Yanni Papanikolaou, Victor L. Fulgoni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersGrain Foods Foundation
KeywordsNutrientSaturated fatNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyRefined grainsWhole grainsAdded sugarLimitingMedicineFood groupDietary fiberEnvironmental healthNutrient densityFood scienceAnimal scienceObesityBiologyPopulationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) maintains recommendations for increased consumption of whole grains while limiting intake of refined grains. A variety of refined grains are sources of several shortfall nutrients identified by the DGAC, including dietary fiber, folate, iron, and magnesium. The purpose of this study was to determine food sources of energy and nutrients for US adults by gender using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2009–2012. Analyses of grain food sources were conducted using a single 24‐hour recall collected in adults ≥19 years of age (Males: n=5,348; Females: n=5,349). Sources of nutrients contained in all grain foods were determined using United States Department of Agriculture nutrient composition databases and food grouping scheme for grains (excluding mixed dishes). Mean energy and nutrient intakes from the total diet and from various grain food groups were adjusted for the sample design using appropriate weights. In males and females, all grains provided 13.8±0.3% and 14.6±0.3% kcal/d in the total diet, respectively. In males, daily nutrient contributions from all grains included 6.8±0.2% total fat, 5.1±0.2% saturated fat, 14.2±0.3% sodium, 8.0±0.3% total sugar, 23.2±0.4% dietary fiber, 13.5±0.3% calcium, 34.0±0.5 % folate DFE, 29.1±0.5% iron, and 13.7±0.3% magnesium. In females, grains contributed 7.6±0.2% total fat, 5.7±0.2% saturated fat, 15.0±0.3% sodium, 7.8±0.2% total sugar, 22.5±0.4% dietary fiber, 13.0±0.3% calcium, 33.3±0.6% folate DFE, 30.2±0.5% iron, and 14.1±0.3% magnesium in the daily diet. When considering commonly consumed grain foods, breads, rolls and tortillas collectively provided 7.6±0.2% kcal/d in the total diet for both males and female adults. In males alone, breads, rolls and tortillas contributed 3.3±0.1% total fat, 2.5±0.1% saturated fat, 7.9±0.2% sodium, 3.6±0.1% total sugar, 13.8±0.3% dietary fiber, 8.9±0.2% calcium, 16.1±0.4% folate DFE, 13.2±0.3% iron, and 7.5±0.2% magnesium daily. Similar results were seen in females, such that daily intake of breads, rolls and tortillas contributed 3.6±0.1% total fat, 2.7±0.1% saturated fat, 8.0±0.2% sodium, 3.0±0.1% total sugar, 12.4±0.3% dietary fiber, 7.9±0.2% calcium, 14.9±0.4% folate DFE, 12.7±0.3% iron, and 7.1±0.2% magnesium. The ready‐to‐eat (RTE) cereal group provided 2.1±0.1% and 2.4±0.1% kcal/d in the total diet of male and females, respectively. RTE cereals supplied 0.8±0.1% total fat, 0.5±0.1% saturated fat, 1.7±0.1% sodium, 2.7±0.2% total sugar, 4.9±0.2% dietary fiber, 1.6±0.1% calcium, 11.0±0.5% folate DFE, 9.9±0.4% iron, and 2.8±0.2% magnesium daily in males. In females, RTE cereals supplied 0.9±0.1% total fat, 0.6±0.1% saturated fat, 1.8±0.1% sodium, 2.6±0.2% total sugar, 5.1±0.2% dietary fiber, 1.7±0.1% calcium, 11.3±0.4% folate DFE, 10.6±0.3% iron, and 2.9±0.1% magnesium in the total daily diet. The current data show that a variety of grain food groups consumed by American adults contribute to nutrient density in the total diet showcasing the potential to increase consumption of shortfall nutrients identified by authoritative recommendations, particularly dietary fiber, folate, and iron. Support or Funding Information Supported by the Grain Foods Foundation

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→