MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080014576 · doi:10.14740/jocmr1884w

Effects of Carbohydrate and Dietary Fiber Intake, Glycemic Index and Glycemic Load on HDL Metabolism in Asian Populations

2014· review· en· W2080014576 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yanai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Global Health and Medicine
KeywordsGlycemic indexMedicineGlycemic loadDietary fiberGlycemicCarbohydrate metabolismCarbohydrateDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineEndocrinologyFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-density lipoprotein (HDL) is a lipoprotein which has anti-atherogenic property by reverse cholesterol transport from the peripheral tissues to liver. Low HDL-cholesterol (HDL-C) levels are associated with the development of coronary artery diseases (CADs). Various epidemiological studies have suggested that the development of CAD increase in individuals with less than 40 mg/dL of HDL-C. In spite of accumulation of evidences which suggest a significant association between low HDL-C and cardiovascular diseases, effects of dietary factors on HDL metabolism remained largely unknown. There may be interracial differences in effects of dietary factors on HDL metabolism. Here we reviewed published articles about effects of carbohydrate and dietary fiber intake, glycemic index (GI) and glycemic load (GL), on HDL-C metabolism, regarding meta-analyses and clinical studies performed in Asian population as important articles. Low carbohydrate intake, GI and GL may be beneficially associated with HDL metabolism. Dietary fiber intake may be favorably associated with HDL metabolism in Asian populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207