Sex differences in the impact of the Mediterranean diet on cardiovascular risk profile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The traditional Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) is now widely recommended in the prevention of CVD. However, it is not known whether the MedDiet has the same beneficial cardiovascular effects in women and in men. The objective of the present study was to investigate sex-related differences with regard to changes in cardiometabolic variables in response to a 4-week isoenergetic MedDiet. Participants were thirty-eight men and thirty-two premenopausal women aged between 25 and 50 years who had slightly elevated LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations (3·4-4·9 mmol/l) or total cholesterol:HDL-cholesterol ratio ≥ 5·0. A 4-week run-in period preceded the MedDiet in order to control the inter- and intra-individual variability. Cardiometabolic variables were measured before and after the MedDiet. Total cholesterol, LDL-C, apoB and apoA-1 plasma concentrations as well as diastolic blood pressure decreased (P < 0·05) in both men and women (respectively, 10, 10, 10, 6 and 5% for men and 6, 7, 9, 4 and 4% for women). ApoA-2 concentrations and insulin concentrations 2 h after the oral administration of 75 g of glucose demonstrated sex × time interactions (respectively, P = 0·05 and P = 0·03) and only men experienced a decrease for these variables (respectively, 8 and 25%). In conclusion, consuming a MedDiet led to significant changes in plasma lipid profile in both men and women, while only men had significant improvements in insulin homeostasis. These results support the importance of investigating sex-related differences in response to diet in order to perhaps further individualise dietary guidelines in the prevention of CVD and type 2 diabetes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".