MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604091766 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015026

Cross-sectional associations between dietary intake and carotid intima media thickness in type 2 diabetes: baseline data from a randomised trial

2017· article· en· W2604091766 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Laura Chiavaroli, Arash Mirrahimi, Christopher Ireland, Sandra A. Mitchell, Sandhya Sahye‐Pudaruth, Judy Coveney, Omodele Olowoyeye, Darshna Patel, Russell J. de Souza, Livia S. A. Augustin, Balachandran Bashyam, Sathish Chandra Pichika, Sonia Blanco Mejía, Stephanie Nishi, Lawrence A. Leiter, Robert G. Josse, Gail McKeown‐Eyssen, Alan R. Moody, Cyril W.C. Kendall, John L. Sievenpiper, David J.A. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanPublic Health OntarioImpactSunnybrook Health Science CentreHealth Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Society of Endocrinology and MetabolismAlpro FoundationCanadian Nutrition SocietyPeanut InstitutePhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationCanola Council of CanadaCoca-Cola FoundationLoblaw Companies LimitedSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersInternational Nut and Dried Fruit CouncilEuropean Foundation for the Study of DiabetesAlmond Board of CaliforniaDanoneDairy Farmers of CanadaArizona State UniversityGovernment of CanadaHealth CanadaQueen's UniversitySt. Michael's Hospital FoundationCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchPepsiCoCanadian Foundation for Dietetic ResearchBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoU.S. Department of AgricultureKellogg'sAbbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Strawberry CommissionGeneral MillsWorld Health OrganizationHospital for Sick ChildrenDanish Cancer Society Research CenterCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesAnthropometryDiabetes mellitusCross-sectional studyInternal medicineIntima-media thicknessBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialSaturated fatType 2 Diabetes MellitusEndocrinologyCholesterolCarotid arteriesPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between dietary intake and carotid intima media thickness (CIMT) by carotid ultrasound (CUS), a surrogate marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, in those with type 2 diabetes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from 325 participants from three randomised controlled trials collected in the same way. SETTING: Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 325 participants with type 2 diabetes, taking oral antidiabetic agents, with an HbA1c between 6.5% and 8.0% at screening, without a recent cardiovascular event. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CIMT by CUS and associations with dietary intake from 7-day food records, as well as anthropometric measures and fasting serum samples. RESULTS: CIMT was significantly inversely associated with dietary pulse intake (β=-0.019, p=0.009), available carbohydrate (β=-0.004, p=0.008), glycaemic load (β=-0.001, p=0.007) and starch (β=-0.126, p=0.010), and directly associated with total (β=0.004, p=0.028) and saturated (β=0.012, p=0.006) fat intake in multivariate regression models adjusted for age, smoking, previous CVD event, blood pressure medication, antidiabetic medication and ultrasonographer. CONCLUSIONS: Lower CIMT was significantly associated with greater consumption of dietary pulses and carbohydrates and lower total and saturated fat intake, suggesting a potential role for diet in CVD risk management in type 2 diabetes. Randomised controlled trials are anticipated to explore these associations further. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01063374.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207