MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Additional file 1 of The portfolio dietary pattern and risk of cardiovascular disease mortality during 1988–2019 in US adults: a prospective cohort study

2025· article· en· W6958877985 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMilitary Technology and Strategies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHazard ratioPortfolioConfidence intervalCohort studyLife tableCohortProportional hazards modelProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Appendix 1–3; Tables S1-S10; Figures S1-S8. Appendix 1. Mortality linkage. Appendix 2. Covariate assessment. Appendix 3. Additional analyses performed beyond primary outcomes. Table S1. Scoring Criteria for the Portfolio Diet using the Portfolio Diet Score with Commonly Reported Foods Items in the 24-h recalls. Table S2. Mean intake of the Portfolio Diet components by tertiles of the Portfolio Diet Score, weighted means. Table S3. Adjusted hazard ratio of the primary outcome of CVD mortality according to tertiles of the Portfolio Diet Score by baseline CVD status. Table S4. Adjusted hazard ratio of CHD mortality according to tertiles of the Portfolio Diet Score by baseline CVD status. Table S5. Adjusted hazard ratio of stroke mortality according to tertiles of the Portfolio Diet Score by baseline CVD status. Table S6. Adjusted hazard ratio of all-cause mortality according to tertiles of the Portfolio Diet Score by baseline CVD status. Table S7. Spearman correlation coefficients between the Portfolio Diet Scoreand the Healthy Eating Index: unweighted analysis. Table S8. Adjusted hazard ratio of all mortality outcomes with BMI according to tertiles of the Portfolio Diet Score. Table S9. Adjusted associations of the individual Portfolio Diet Score components and CVD mortality through a continuous analysis using RCS fully adjusted model using linked mortality files through 2019. Table S10. Subgroup analysis for race/ethnicity by four original groupings with adjusted hazard ratio for all outcomes. Figure S1. Selection of study population. Figure S2. Directed acyclic graph of the Portfolio Diet and CVD mortality. Figure S3. Survival curves for: CVD mortality, CHD mortality,stroke mortality, and all-cause mortality. Figure S4. Adjusted differences in hazard ratio for: CVD mortality, CHD mortality, stroke mortality, and all-cause mortality. Figure S5. Subgroup analysis with adjusted hazard ratio for CVD mortality. Figure S6. Subgroup analysis with adjusted hazard ratio for CHD mortality. Figure S7. Subgroup analysis with adjusted hazard ratio for stroke mortality. Figure S8. Subgroup analysis with adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality.

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)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5320.047

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicMilitary Technology and Strategies→French-language works237,207→