Cohort profile: the CARTaGENE Cohort Nutrition Study (Quebec, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To address emerging nutritional epidemiological research questions, data from contemporary cohorts are needed. CARTaGENE is the largest ongoing prospective cohort study of men and women in Québec, Canada. Dietary information was collected making it a rich resource for the exploration of diet in the aetiology of many health outcomes. PARTICIPANTS: CARTaGENE recruited over 43 000 men and women aged 40-69 in two phases (A and B). In phase A, a total of 19 784 men and women were enrolled between 2009 and 2010. In 2011-2012, phase A participants of CARTaGENE were recontacted and invited to complete the self-administered Canadian Diet History Questionnaire II, which assessed usual intake over the past 12 months of a comprehensive array of foods, beverages and supplements; 9379 participants with non-missing age and sex data and with plausible total energy intake comprise the CARTaGENE Cohort Nutrition Study (4212 men; 5167 women). FINDINGS TO DATE: Available dietary data include intake of total energy, macronutrients and micronutrients, food group equivalents and a measure of diet quality based on the Canadian Healthy Eating Index 2005 (C-HEI 2005). Intake and diet quality varied among participants though they generally met the recommended dietary reference intakes for most nutrients. The mean C-HEI 2005 score was 61.5 (SD=14.0; max score=100), comparable to the general Canadian population. The mean (SD) scores for men and women separately were 57.0 (14.1) and 65.2 (12.8), respectively. C-HEI scores were higher for never smokers (61.6), those who had attained more than a high school education (61.4) and those with high physical activity (60.4) compared with current smokers (55.8), less than high school education level (56.2) and low physical activity (57.6), respectively (p values<0.01). FUTURE PLANS: The CARTaGENE Cohort Nutrition Study is an additional resource of the CARTaGENE platform and is available internationally to examine research questions related to diet and health among contemporary populations. Starting in 2024, annual diet assessments using two 24-hour dietary recalls over a 30-day period will take place, further expanding the cohort as a resource for dietary research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".