Effect of fructose on postprandial triglycerides: A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the absence of consistent clinical evidence, concerns have been raised that fructose raises postprandial triglycerides. PURPOSE: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effect of fructose on postprandial triglycerides. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases (through September 3, 2013). DATA SELECTION: Relevant clinical trials of ≥ 7-days were included in the analysis. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data with disagreements reconciled by consensus. The Heyland Methodological Quality Score (MQS) assessed study quality. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method using random effects models and expressed as standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I(2) statistic). DATA SYNTHESIS: Eligibility criteria were met by 14 isocaloric trials (n = 290), in which fructose was exchanged isocalorically for other carbohydrate in the diet, and two hypercaloric trials (n = 33), in which fructose supplemented the background diet with excess energy from high-dose fructose compared with the background diet alone (without the excess energy). There was no significant effect in the isocaloric trials (SMD: 0.14 [95% CI: -0.02, 0.30]) with evidence of considerable heterogeneity explained by a single trial. Hypercaloric trials, however, showed a significant postprandial triglyceride raising-effect of fructose (SMD: 0.65 [95% CI: 0.30, 1.01]). LIMITATIONS: Most of the available trials were small, short, and of poor quality. Interpretation of the isocaloric trials is complicated by the large influence of a single trial. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses show that fructose in isocaloric exchange for other carbohydrate does not increase postprandial triglycerides, although an effect cannot be excluded under all conditions. Fructose providing excess energy does increase postprandial triglycerides. Larger, longer, and higher-quality trials are needed. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov 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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".