Effects of Canola and Vegetable Oil Blends on Reactive Hyperemia Index (RHI) in Adults at Risk for Metabolic Syndrome (MetS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the effects of 5 dietary oils on RHI: corn/safflower oil (69.3% LA, 17.6% MUFA), canola oil (62.8% MUFA, 29.3% PUFA: 19.5% LA, 10% ALA), high‐oleic canola oil (72% MUFA, 17% PUFA: 15% LA, 2% ALA), high‐oleic canola oil with DHA (63.8% MUFA, 13% LA, 6% DHA), and flax/safflower oil (69.4% PUFA: 37.5% LA, 32% ALA, 17.9% MUFA). We conducted a multi‐center, randomized, 5‐period crossover, controlled feeding study. RHI was measured after isocaloric, heart‐healthy diets containing one of 5 oils for 4 weeks, followed by >2 week break. In adults at risk of MetS, there was no significant treatment effect for RHI, an index of endothelial function. There was a treatment x period interaction (p=0.03). Because of known menstrual changes in RHI, we made an a priori decision to separately analyze effects excluding premenopausal women. In this subsample (n = 85), there was a significant treatment effect (P=0.048). RHI on the corn/safflower diet was significantly greater than on the flax/safflower diet (mean RHI=2.2±0.1 vs. 1.9 ±0.1 P=0.038). No other differences were significant.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".