Sex differences in the impact of the Mediterranean diet on systemic inflammation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Some intervention trials have reported a reduction in systemic inflammation with the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) while others have observed no effect. Despite the fact that sex differences have been highlighted in the inflammatory regulation, it is still not known whether MedDiet exerts similar effects on systemic inflammation in men and women. The aim of this study was therefore to investigate sex differences in the effects of the MedDiet on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP). FINDINGS: Participants were 35 men and 27 premenopausal women (24-53 years) presenting a slightly deteriorated lipid profile. All foods were provided to participants during a 4-week isocaloric MedDiet. At baseline, women had higher hs-CRP concentrations than men (P = 0.03). No sex difference was observed in hs-CRP response to the MedDiet (P for sex-by-time interaction = 0.36), with both men and women experiencing no change (respectively P = 0.62 and P > 0.99). When subgroups were formed according to hs-CRP concentration before the MedDiet phase, men with elevated baseline values (≥2 mg/l) experienced a reduction in hs-CRP over time with the MedDiet (-26.5 %) while an increase was observed in men with lower baseline values (+96.6 %; P for group-by-time interaction = 0.02). This pattern of change was not observed in women. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this controlled feeding study suggest that men and women have similar effects from the MedDiet on systemic inflammation. The individual's overall inflammatory status seems to influence these effects, but only in men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01293344 .
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".