Cardiometabolic risk factors in vegans; A meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that plant based diets are associated with lower cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of a vegan compared to an omnivorous diet on cardio-metabolic risk factors. METHODS: Meta-analysis of observational studies published between 1960 and June 2018 that reported one or more cardio-metabolic risk factors in vegans and controls eating an omnivorous diet were undertaken. Macro-nutrient intake and cardio-metabolic risk factors were compared by dietary pattern. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of each study. The inverse-variance method was used to pool mean differences. Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan software version 5•2 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen. RESULTS: 40 studies with 12 619 vegans and 179 630 omnivores were included. From food frequency questionnaires in 28 studies, vegans compared to omnivores consumed less energy (-11%, 95% confidence interval -14 to -8) and less saturated fat (- 51%, CI -57 to -45). Compared to controls vegans had a lower body mass index (-1.72 kg/m2, CI -2.30 to -1.16), waist circumference (-2.35 cm, CI -3.93 to -0.76), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.49 mmol/L CI -0.62 to -0.36), triglycerides (-0.14 mmol/L, CI -0.24 to -0.05), fasting blood glucose (-0.23 mmol/, CI -0.35 to -0.10), and systolic (-2.56 mmHg, CI -4.66 to -0.45) and diastolic blood pressure (-1.33 mmHg, CI -2.67 to -0.02), p<0.0001 for all. Results were consistent for studies with < and ≥ 50 vegans, and published before and after 2010. However in several large studies from Taiwan a vegan diet was not associated with favourable cardio-metabolic risk factors compared to the control diets. CONCLUSION: In most countries a vegan diet is associated with a more favourable cardio- metabolic profile compared to an omnivorous diet.
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 | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".