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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0390.017
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
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