Relation of total sugars, fructose and sucrose with incident type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sugar-sweetened beverages are associated with type 2 diabetes. To assess whether this association holds for the fructose-containing sugars they contain, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library (through June 2016). We included prospective cohort studies that assessed the relation of fructose-containing sugars with incident type 2 diabetes. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) using random effects meta-analyses. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. RESULTS: Fiffeen prospective cohort studies (251 261 unique participants, 16 416 cases) met the eligibility criteria, comparing the highest intake (median 137, 35.2 and 78 g/d) with the lowest intake (median 65, 9.7 and 25.8 g/d) of total sugars, fructose and sucrose, respectively. Although there was no association of total sugars (RR 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.09) or fructose (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.29) with type 2 diabetes, sucrose was associated with a decreased risk of type 2 diabetes (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-0.98). Our confidence in the estimates was limited by evidence of serious inconsistency between studies for total sugars and fructose, and serious imprecision in the pooled estimates for all 3 sugar categories. INTERPRETATION: Current evidence does not allow us to conclude that fructose-containing sugars independent of food form are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Further research is likely to affect our estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT01608620.
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 | 0.021 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".