Fructose vs. glucose and metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Fructose is seen as uniquely contributing to the pandemics of obesity and its cardiometabolic complications. Much of the evidence for this view derives from the unique biochemical, metabolic, and endocrine responses that differentiate fructose from glucose. To understand whether these proposed mechanisms result in clinically meaningful modification of cardiovascular risk in humans, we update a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of controlled feeding trials to assess the cardiometabolic effects of fructose in isocaloric replacement for glucose. RECENT FINDINGS: A total of 20 controlled feeding trials (n = 344) have investigated the effect of fructose in/on cardiometabolic endpoints. Pooled analyses show that although fructose may increase total cholesterol, uric acid, and postprandial triglycerides in isocaloric replacement for glucose, it does not appear to be any worse than glucose in its effects on other aspects of the lipid profile, insulin, or markers of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. It may also have important advantages over glucose for body weight, glycemic control, and blood pressure. SUMMARY: Depending on the cardiometabolic endpoint in question, fructose has variable effects when replacing glucose. In the absence of clear evidence of net harm, there is no justification to replace fructose with glucose in the diet.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".