Increased incidence of cardiovascular disease: are low-carbohydrate–high-protein diets truly to blame?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: Lagiou P, Sandin S, Lof M, et al. Low carbohydrate-high protein diet and incidence of cardiovascular diseases in Swedish women: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: :e4026.[OpenUrl][1] Low-carbohydrate—high-protein diets have become popular in developed countries as an aid to weight loss. However, uncertainties about their effectiveness in weight loss and concerns about long-term adverse impacts on cardiovascular health remain. Several systematic reviews1 ,2 have concluded that, with the increasing prevalence of obesity, there is a need for long-term evidence/studies of low-carbohydrate diets. The authors investigate the long-term consequences of low-carbohydrate diets (LCHD) on cardiovascular health in a female Swedish population. Women aged 30–49 recruited from the Swedish Women's Lifestyle and Health cohort were followed for a mean of 15.7 years. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess lifestyle, physical activity … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBMJ%26rft.volume%253D344%26rft.spage%253D%253Ae4026%26rft.atitle%253DLOW%2BCARBOHYDRATE-HIGH%2BPROTEIN%2BDIET%2BAND%2BINCIDENCE%2BOF%2BCARDIOVASCULAR%2BDISEASES%2BIN%2BSWEDISH%2BWOMEN%253A%2BPROSPECTIVE%2BCOHORT%2BSTUDY.%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | medium |
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 | 0.004 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.013 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".