MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2417166294 · doi:10.5740/jaoacint.sgejones

Inter-individual Variability in Response to Plant Sterol and Stanol Consumption

2015· review· en· W2417166294 on OpenAlexaff
Peter J.H. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of AOAC International · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCholesterol and Lipid Metabolism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)BiologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismSterolCholesterolGeneticsGeneGenotypeEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the abundance of clinical trial data demonstrating the cholesterol-lowering action of plant sterol supplementation, substantial variability in efficacy exists in responsiveness across individuals. The goal of this review is to examine factors responsible for this heterogeneity in responsiveness of blood cholesterol levels to dietary plant sterols. Although initially thought to be due to random noise in the data, demonstrated consistency in degree of responsiveness in the context of controlled feeding designs from person to person suggests that other systematic drivers are responsible. Genetic explanations explaining this phenomenon appear to be gaining momentum. Particularly, single nucleotide polymorphisms within the genes coding for CYP7A1 and ApoE, as well as possibly other genes including ABCG5 and ABCG8, exist as predictors of whether LDL-C levels will decrease or even increase subsequent to plant sterol administration. In summary, nutrigenetic differences across genes associated with cholesterol trafficking pathways may be important in predicting how well any given individual will respond to dietary interventions. It is anticipated that eventually genetic tests will be developed that can guide health care professionals to optimize dietary strategies for health optimization.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations30
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AOAC InternationalSame topicCholesterol and Lipid MetabolismFrench-language works237,207