The Effect of Saturated Fat Intake With Risk of Stroke and Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review of Prospective Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A decline in saturated fat intake has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence presented in recent prospective epidemiologic studies related to the association of saturated fat intake and risk of stroke and coronary heart disease (CHD).DESIGN: Sixteen prospective cohort studies identified by searches of the Medline and ProQuest databases are included in this review. The association of saturated fat intake with stroke and CHD risk is explored using the relative risk (RR), Hazard ratio (HR), and 95% confidence interval (CI) methods.RESULTS: Over follow-up periods of 8 to 30 years, 22,773 of 668,082 participants of these 16 studies developed stroke or CHD. Saturated fat intake was associated with an increased risk of CHD (HR = 2.36, 95% CI 1.10–5.09) but not with stroke. Gender and age had no impact on the stroke rate, whereas the female gender was a risk factor for CHD (HR = 3.07, 95% CI 1.54–6.11). In addition, a subgroup analysis showed a positive association between smoking history and increasing risk of stroke and CHD.CONCLUSION: This systematic review of prospective-cohort epidemiologic studies found that there is a weak to strong association between saturated fat intake and increased CHD risk but not significant evidence for concluding that saturated fat intake is associated with an increased risk of stroke. In addition, more research is needed to determine whether risk of stroke and/or CHD is potentially affected by specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.
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 | 0.014 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".