Dietary Patterns and the Risk of Acute Myocardial Infarction in 52 Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diet is a major modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but it varies markedly in different regions of the world. The objectives of the present study were to assess the association between dietary patterns and acute myocardial infarction (AMI) globally. METHODS AND RESULTS: INTERHEART is a standardized case-control study involving participants from 52 countries. The present analysis included 5761 cases and 10 646 control subjects. We identified 3 major dietary patterns using factor analysis: Oriental (high intake of tofu and soy and other sauces), Western (high in fried foods, salty snacks, eggs, and meat), and prudent (high in fruit and vegetables). We observed an inverse association between the prudent pattern and AMI, with higher levels being protective. Compared with the first quartile, the adjusted ORs were 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.88) for the second quartile, 0.66 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) for the third, and 0.70 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.80) for the fourth (P for trend <0.001). The Western pattern showed a U-shaped association with AMI (compared with the first quartile, the adjusted OR for the second quartile was 0.87 [95% CI 0.78 to 0.98], whereas it was 1.12 [95% CI 1.00 to 1.25] for the third quartile and 1.35 [95% CI 1.21 to 1.51] for the fourth quartile; P for trend <0.001), but the Oriental pattern demonstrated no relationship with AMI. Compared with the first quartile, the OR of a dietary risk score derived from meat, salty snacks, fried foods, fruits, green leafy vegetables, cooked vegetables, and other raw vegetables (higher score indicating a poorer diet) increased with each quartile: second quartile 1.29 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.42), third quartile 1.67 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.83), and fourth quartile 1.92 (95% CI 1.74 to 2.11; P for trend <0.001). The adjusted population-attributable risk of AMI for the top 3 quartiles compared with the bottom quartile of the dietary risk score was 30%. CONCLUSIONS: An unhealthy dietary intake, assessed by a simple dietary risk score, increases the risk of AMI globally and accounts for approximately 30% of the population-attributable risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".