Nut consumption and incidence of cardiovascular diseases and cardiovascular disease mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Previous meta-analyses evaluating the association between nut consumption and the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) had substantial methodological limitations and lacked recently published large prospective studies; hence, making an updated meta-analysis highly desirable. OBJECTIVE: To update the clinical guidelines for nutrition therapy in relation to the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD), a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies was conducted using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to summarize the evidence of the association between total nuts, specific types of nuts, and the incidence of, and mortality from, CVD outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Relevant articles were identified by searching the PubMed and Cochrane databases. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent researchers screened the articles to identify those that met the inclusion criteria. DATA ANALYSIS: The inverse variance method with fixed-effect or random-effects models was used to pool data across studies (expressed as risk ratio [RR] and 95% confidence interval [CI]). Heterogeneity was tested and quantified using the Cochrane Q test and I2-statistic, respectively. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of the evidence. RESULTS: Nineteen studies were included in the analyses. The results revealed an inverse association between total nut consumption (comparing highest vs lowest categories) and CVD incidence (RR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.800.91; I2, 0%), CVD mortality (RR, 0.77; 95%CI, 0.72-0.82; I2, 3%), coronary heart disease (CHD) incidence (RR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.69-0.96; I2, 74%), CHD mortality (RR, 0.76; 95%CI, 0.67-0.86; I2, 46%), stroke mortality (RR, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.75-0.93; I2, 0%), and atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.85; 95%CI, 0.73-0.99; I2, 0%). No association was observed with stroke incidence and heart failure. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a beneficial role of nut consumption in reducing the incidence of, and mortality from, different CVD outcomes.
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 | 0.035 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".