The association of food quality score and cardiovascular diseases risk factors among women: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Limited studies are available regarding the relationship between Food Quality Score (FQS) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Thus, this study was aimed to investigate the association of FQS with CVD risk factors in women. Methods: This cross-sectional study was carried out among 368 women aged 20-50 years who randomly selected from health centers across Tehran, Iran. Dietary intake was collected using a reliable and validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). The FQS includes vegetables, fruits, whole grains, yogurt, nuts and legumes, coffee, refined grains, desserts and ice cream, sugar-sweetened beverages, red meats, fried food consumed outside the home, processed meats, potato and potato chips. Standard methods were used to assess blood pressure, biochemical and anthropometric measures. Multivariate logistic regression was used to examine the association between FQS and CVD risk factors. Results: Participant mean age and body mass index (BMI) were 30.7 ± 6.9 years and 24.3 ± 4.0 kg/m2, respectively. After taking potential confounders into account, FQS had no significant association with risk of overweight and obesity [Odds ratio (OR): 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 1.8; P = 0.683], diabetes (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.22, 1.74; P = 0.374), metabolic syndrome (OR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.10, 1.32; P = 0.127), hypercholesterolemia (OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.29, 1.01; P= 0.051), or hypertriglyceridemia (OR: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.71, 3.70; P = 0.244). Conclusion: The results showed that FQS was not significantly associated with CVD risk factors among women. Prospective cohort studies are warranted to confirm our findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".