MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009258320 · doi:10.1136/bmj.m513

Egg consumption and risk of cardiovascular disease: three large prospective US cohort studies, systematic review, and updated meta-analysis

2020· review· en· W3009258320 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jean‐Philippe Drouin‐Chartier, Siyu Chen, Yanping Li, Amanda L Schwab, Meir J. Stampfer, Frank M. Sacks, Bernard Rosner, Walter C. Willett, Frank B. Hu, Shilpa N Bhupathiraju

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyHazard ratioCohort studyCohortMyocardial infarctionMeta-analysisDiseaseBody mass indexInternal medicineNurses' Health StudyType 2 diabetesConfidence intervalDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To evaluate the association between egg intake and cardiovascular disease risk among women and men in the United States, and to conduct a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Design Prospective cohort study, and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Setting Nurses’ Health Study (NHS, 1980-2012), NHS II (1991-2013), Health Professionals’ Follow-Up Study (HPFS, 1986-2012). Participants Cohort analyses included 83 349 women from NHS, 90 214 women from NHS II, and 42 055 men from HPFS who were free of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancer at baseline. Main outcome measures Incident cardiovascular disease, which included non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, and stroke. Results Over up to 32 years of follow-up (>5.54 million person years), 14 806 participants with incident cardiovascular disease were identified in the three cohorts. Participants with a higher egg intake had a higher body mass index, were less likely to be treated with statins, and consumed more red meats. Most people consumed between one and less than five eggs per week. In the pooled multivariable analysis, consumption of at least one egg per day was not associated with incident cardiovascular disease risk after adjustment for updated lifestyle and dietary factors associated with egg intake (hazard ratio for at least one egg per day v less than one egg per month 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.82 to 1.05). In the updated meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies (33 risk estimates, 1 720 108 participants, 139 195 cardiovascular disease events), an increase of one egg per day was not associated with cardiovascular disease risk (pooled relative risk 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.03, I 2 =62.3%). Results were similar for coronary heart disease (21 risk estimates, 1 411 261 participants, 59 713 coronary heart disease events; 0.96, 0.91 to 1.03, I 2 =38.2%), and stroke (22 risk estimates, 1 059 315 participants, 53 617 stroke events; 0.99, 0.91 to 1.07, I 2 =71.5%). In analyses stratified by geographical location (P for interaction=0.07), no association was found between egg consumption and cardiovascular disease risk among US cohorts (1.01, 0.96 to 1.06, I 2 =30.8%) or European cohorts (1.05, 0.92 to 1.19, I 2 =64.7%), but an inverse association was seen in Asian cohorts (0.92, 0.85 to 0.99, I 2 =44.8%). Conclusions Results from the three cohorts and from the updated meta-analysis show that moderate egg consumption (up to one egg per day) is not associated with cardiovascular disease risk overall, and is associated with potentially lower cardiovascular disease risk in Asian populations. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019129650.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.444
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207