Effect of tree nuts on metabolic syndrome criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled 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
OBJECTIVE: To provide a broader evidence summary to inform dietary guidelines of the effect of tree nuts on criteria of the metabolic syndrome (MetS). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of tree nuts on criteria of the MetS. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (through 4 April 2014). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of ≥3 weeks reporting at least one criterion of the MetS. DATA EXTRACTION: Two or more independent reviewers extracted all relevant data. Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method using random effects models and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I(2) statistic. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed. RESULTS: Eligibility criteria were met by 49 RCTs including 2226 participants who were otherwise healthy or had dyslipidaemia, MetS or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Tree nut interventions lowered triglycerides (MD=-0.06 mmol/L (95% CI -0.09 to -0.03 mmol/L)) and fasting blood glucose (MD=-0.08 mmol/L (95% CI -0.16 to -0.01 mmol/L)) compared with control diet interventions. There was no effect on waist circumference, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or blood pressure with the direction of effect favouring tree nuts for waist circumference. There was evidence of significant unexplained heterogeneity in all analyses (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled analyses show a MetS benefit of tree nuts through modest decreases in triglycerides and fasting blood glucose with no adverse effects on other criteria across nut types. As our conclusions are limited by the short duration and poor quality of the majority of trials, as well as significant unexplained between-study heterogeneity, there remains a need for larger, longer, high-quality trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 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 | 0.049 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.108 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it