MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1939763155 · doi:10.1161/jaha.114.001700

Effect of Fructose on Established Lipid Targets: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials

2015· review· en· W1939763155 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanHeart and Stroke FoundationQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Diabetes AssociationAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisSystematic reviewFructoseInternal medicineMEDLINEPharmacologyFood scienceBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Debate over the role of fructose in mediating cardiovascular risk remains active. To update the evidence on the effect of fructose on established therapeutic lipid targets for cardiovascular disease (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL]-C, apolipoprotein B, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [HDL-C]), and metabolic syndrome (triglycerides and HDL-C), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL, and the Cochrane Library were searched through July 7, 2015 for controlled feeding trials with follow-up ≥7 days, which investigated the effect of oral fructose compared to a control carbohydrate on lipids (LDL-C, apolipoprotein B, non-HDL-C, triglycerides, and HDL-C) in participants of all health backgrounds. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data. Data were pooled using random effects models and expressed as mean difference with 95% CI. Interstudy heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I(2) statistic). Eligibility criteria were met by 51 isocaloric trials (n=943), in which fructose was provided in isocaloric exchange for other carbohydrates, and 8 hypercaloric trials (n=125), in which fructose supplemented control diets with excess calories compared to the control diets alone without the excess calories. Fructose had no effect on LDL-C, non-HDL-C, apolipoprotein B, triglycerides, or HDL-C in isocaloric trials. However, in hypercaloric trials, fructose increased apolipoprotein B (n=2 trials; mean difference = 0.18 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.05, 0.30; P=0.005) and triglycerides (n=8 trials; mean difference = 0.26 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.11, 0.41; P<0.001). The study is limited by small sample sizes, limited follow-up, and low quality scores of the included trials. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses showed that fructose only had an adverse effect on established lipid targets when added to existing diets so as to provide excess calories (+21% to 35% energy). When isocalorically exchanged for other carbohydrates, fructose had no adverse effects on blood lipids. More trials that are larger, longer, and higher quality are required. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique Identifier: NCT01363791.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0380.010
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.346 · 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