Effect of Tree Nuts on Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Dietary Trials
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tree nut consumption has been associated with reduced diabetes risk, however, results from randomized trials on glycemic control have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVE: To provide better evidence for diabetes guidelines development, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to assess the effects of tree nuts on markers of glycemic control in individuals with diabetes. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases through 6 April 2014. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials ≥3 weeks conducted in individuals with diabetes that compare the effect of diets emphasizing tree nuts to isocaloric diets without tree nuts on HbA1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewer's extracted relevant data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% CI's. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q-statistic) and quantified (I2). RESULTS: Twelve trials (n = 450) were included. Diets emphasizing tree nuts at a median dose of 56 g/d significantly lowered HbA1c (MD = -0.07% [95% CI:-0.10, -0.03%]; P = 0.0003) and fasting glucose (MD = -0.15 mmol/L [95% CI: -0.27, -0.02 mmol/L]; P = 0.03) compared with control diets. No significant treatment effects were observed for fasting insulin and HOMA-IR, however the direction of effect favoured tree nuts. LIMITATIONS: Majority of trials were of short duration and poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses show that tree nuts improve glycemic control in individuals with type 2 diabetes, supporting their inclusion in a healthy diet. Owing to the uncertainties in our analyses there is a need for longer, higher quality trials with a focus on using nuts to displace high-glycemic index carbohydrates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01630980.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.136 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it