Ultra-processed food consumption and the risk of incident chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies
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
BACKGROUND: Recent individual studies have indicated that ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption may be associated with the incidence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on those longitudinal studies evaluating the relationship between UPF consumption and the risk of incident CKD, and synthesizing the results. METHOD: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through 22 March 2023. Any longitudinal studies evaluating the relationship between UPF consumption and the risk of incident CKD were included. Two researchers independently conducted the literature screening and data extraction. RR and its 95% CI were regarded as the effect size. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to assess the quality of the studies included, and the effect of UPF consumption on the risk of incident CKD was analyzed with STATA version 15.1. This study's protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023411951). RESULTS: Four cohort studies with a total of 219,132 participants were included after screening. The results of the meta-analysis suggested that the highest UPF intake was associated with an increased risk of incident CKD (RR = 1.25; 95% CI: 1.18-1.33). CONCLUSIONS: High-dose UPF intake was associated with an increased risk of incident CKD. However, the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. Thus, more standardized clinical studies and further exploration of the mechanisms are needed in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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