MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028398272 · doi:10.1177/1559827620916698

The Role of Pulses in Cardiovascular Disease Risk for Adults With Diabetes

2020· review· en· W3028398272 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia K. Lukus, Katarina M. Doma, Alison M. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Lifestyle Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytoestrogen effects and research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusGlycemicDiseaseGlycemic indexObservational studyEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Lifestyle MedicineSame topicPhytoestrogen effects and researchFrench-language works237,207