Proportions of trans fatty acids in erythrocytes of Canadian adults before the prohibition of partially hydrogenated oils in foods: results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey 2012–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The partially hydrogenated oil (PHO) prohibition came into effect in Canada in September 2018 to reduce the intakes of total trans fatty acids (t-TFAs) and industrially produced TFAs (i-TFAs). OBJECTIVES: We aimed to estimate the red blood cell (RBC) proportions of t-TFA (primary objective) and total 18:1 TFA (secondary objective) of adults in Canada before the PHO prohibition and to identify the population subgroups at risk of higher TFA intakes. METHODS: We pooled data from 4025 adult participants of the cross-sectional Canadian Health Measures Survey cycles 3 and 4 (2012-2015). We estimated mean proportions, relative to total fatty acids (FAs), of RBC t-TFA and 18:1 TFA and their associations with sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle characteristics using multiple linear regression models. RESULTS: The nonadjusted mean RBC proportions of t-TFA and total 18:1 TFA were 0.59% (95% CI: 0.54, 0.63) and 0.27% (95% CI: 0.25, 0.29), respectively. In the adjusted models, the same participant characteristics were associated with t-TFA and 18:1 TFA but differences were generally smaller for 18:1 TFA than for t-TFA. Race, BMI, and alcohol intake were independently associated with RBC t-TFA and 18:1 TFA. Asian and Black participants had lower RBC t-TFA (-0.05% and -0.10% of total FA, respectively) than White participants. Obesity and high risk alcohol drinking were associated with slightly lower (≤0.06%) t-TFA proportions than lower adiposity and alcohol intake concentrations, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-PHO prohibition in food in Canada, t-TFA proportions were relatively low compared with a proposed threshold of 1% of total RBC FAs, over which cardiovascular disease risk may be higher. Previous voluntary initiatives to reduce i-TFA in the food supply may explain these relatively low RBC t-TFA concentrations. Some population subgroups had higher baseline RBC TFA than other subgroups, but the physiological implications of these small differences, at relatively low baseline RBC TFA proportions, remain to be determined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".