The Role of Pulses in Cardiovascular Disease Risk for Adults With Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death among adults while associated comorbidities like diabetes further increase risks of CVD-related complications and mortality. Strategies to prevent and manage CVD risk, such as dietary change, are a key component for CVD and diabetes prevention and management. Pulses, defined as the dried edible seeds of plants in the legume family, have received attention for their superior nutritional composition as high-fiber, low-glycemic index foods and have been studied for their potential to reduce CVD and diabetes risk. Both observational and experimental studies conducted among adults with and without diabetes have provided support for pulses in their ability to improve lipid profiles, glycemic control, and blood pressure, all of which are major modifiable risk factors of CVD. These capabilities have been attributed to various mechanisms associated with the nutrient and phytochemical composition of pulses. Overall, this evidence provides support for the consumption of pulses as an important dietary strategy to reduce risk of CVD for those living with and without diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".