MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776826800 · doi:10.1161/jaha.117.006659

Effect of Plant Protein on Blood Lipids: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2017· review· en· W2776826800 on OpenAlexafffund
Siying S. Li, Sonia Blanco Mejía, Lyubov Lytvyn, Sarah Stewart, Effie Viguiliouk, Vanessa Ha, Russell J. de Souza, Lawrence A. Leiter, Cyril W.C. Kendall, David J.A. Jenkins, John L. Sievenpiper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoImpactSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesAlmond Board of CaliforniaEuropean Foundation for the Study of DiabetesInternational Nut and Dried Fruit CouncilEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesCanola Council of CanadaCoca-Cola FoundationLoblaw Companies LimitedCanadian Foundation for Dietetic ResearchDanoneDiabetes CanadaSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersMcMaster UniversityAdvanced Foods and Materials NetworkAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaPepsiCoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of CanadaGeneral MillsHealth CanadaDanish Cancer Society Research CenterPeanut InstituteCanadian Nutrition SocietyWorld Health Organization
KeywordsMedicineConfidence intervalMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineCholesterolRelative riskLipoprotein

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background There is a heightened interest in plant‐based diets for cardiovascular disease prevention. Although plant protein is thought to mediate such prevention through modifying blood lipids, the effect of plant protein in specific substitution for animal protein on blood lipids remains unclear. To assess the effect of this substitution on established lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction, we conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Methods and Results MEDLINE , EMBASE , and the Cochrane Registry were searched through September 9, 2017. We included randomized controlled trials of ≥3 weeks comparing the effect of plant protein in substitution for animal protein on low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed risk of bias. Data were pooled by the generic inverse variance method and expressed as mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I 2 statistic). The overall quality (certainty) of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. One‐hundred twelve randomized controlled trials met the eligibility criteria. Plant protein in substitution for animal protein decreased low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.16 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.20 to −0.12 mmol/L; P <0.00001; I 2 =55%; moderate‐quality evidence), non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.18 mmol/L (95% confidence interval, −0.22 to −0.14 mmol/L; P <0.00001; I 2 =52%; moderate‐quality evidence), and apolipoprotein B by 0.05 g/L (95% confidence interval, −0.06 to −0.03 g/L; P <0.00001; I 2 =30%; moderate‐quality evidence). Conclusions Substitution of plant protein for animal protein decreases the established lipid targets low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, non–high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, and apolipoprotein B. More high‐quality randomized trials are needed to improve our estimates. Clinical Trial Registration URL : http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 02037321.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.053
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.053
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.034
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations134
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207