Total Fructose Intake and Risk of Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although most controlled feeding trials have failed to show an adverse effect of fructose on blood pressure, concerns continue to be raised regarding the role of fructose in hypertension. To quantify the association between fructose-containing sugar (high-fructose corn syrup, sucrose, and fructose) intake and incident hypertension, a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies was undertaken. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (through February 5, 2014) were searched for relevant studies. Two independent reviewers reviewed and extracted relevant data. Risk estimates were aggregated comparing the lowest (reference) quintile with highest quintile of intake using inverse variance random effect models and expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Interstudy heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I(2) statistic). The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale assessed study quality. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01608620. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria were met by 3 prospective cohorts (n = 37,375 men and 185,855 women) with 58,162 cases of hypertension observed over 2,502,357 person-years of follow-up. Median fructose intake was 5.7-6.0% total energy in the lowest quintile and 13.9-14.3% total energy in the highest quintile. Fructose intake was not associated with incident hypertension (RR = 1.02, 95% CI, 0.99-1.04), with no evidence of heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%, p = 0.59). Spline curve modeling showed a U-shaped relationship with a negative association at intakes ≤50th percentile (∼10% total energy) and a positive association at higher intakes. CONCLUSIONS: Total fructose intake was not associated with an increased risk of hypertension in 3 large prospective cohorts of U.S. men and women.
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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".