Development and validation of a sodium AnaLysis tool (SALT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Sodium is an essential nutrient; however, excess dietary sodium is associated with increased blood pressure levels. The 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey – Nutrition (CCHS 2.2) concluded that most Canadians exceeded the Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) of 2300 mg/day. The 2015 CCHS indicated that Canadians were still consuming above the UL. To assess population sodium intakes, a Sodium AnaLysis Tool (SALT) was developed. Methods We used data from CCHS 2.2 (2004) to group foods into types (e.g., popcorn, crackers) and general categories (e.g., snack foods) which formed the SALT questions. Portion sizes and sodium values were calculated for SALT questions. Over a one-month period, one hundred participants completed three, 24-h recalls (at beginning, middle, and end) and two SALT (SALT1 & SALT2) tools (at beginning and end). To assess both validity and reliability, statistical tests including Bland-Altman (B-A) plots, paired t-tests, differences between means, and correlations were conducted. The mean of the 3,24-h recalls (m24HR) was used for validation. Results Validity testing between SALT2 and the m24HR yielded variable results. A B-A plot between SALT2 and m24HR depicted a small bias of 7 mg/day of sodium. The sodium intake for m24HR (2742 ± 980 mg/day) (mean ± standard deviation) versus SALT2 (2735 ± 1174 mg/day) was not significantly different (p = 0.960). Pearson’s correlation between methods, although significant (p = 0.02) was poor (r = 0.202; de-attenuated r = 0.400). There was a fair, significant agreement (κ = 0.236, p = 0.02) for the classification of sodium intake into two categories (above or below the UL). Test-retest reliability results were also variable. There was moderate, significant agreement (κ = 0.488, p = 0.001) for classification of sodium intake into two categories between SALT1 and SALT2, a significant correlation (Pearson’s r = 0.785, p
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 | 0.058 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".