Associations of linoleic acid with markers of glucose metabolism and liver function in South African adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relation between dietary and circulating linoleic acid (18:2 n-6, LA), glucose metabolism and liver function is not yet clear. Associations of dietary and circulating LA with glucose metabolism and liver function markers were investigated. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses in 633 black South Africans (aged > 30 years, 62% female, 51% urban) without type 2 diabetes at baseline of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study. A cultural-sensitive 145-item food-frequency questionnaire was used to collect dietary data, including LA (percentage of energy; en%). Blood samples were collected to measure circulating LA (% total fatty acids (FA); plasma phospholipids), plasma glucose, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), serum gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), alanine (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST). Associations per 1 standard deviation (SD) and in tertiles were analyzed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: Mean (±SD) dietary and circulating LA was 6.8 (±3.1) en% and 16.0 (±3.5) % total FA, respectively. Dietary and circulating LA were not associated with plasma glucose or HbA1c (β per 1 SD: - 0.005 to 0.010, P > 0.20). Higher dietary LA was generally associated with lower serum liver enzymes levels. One SD higher circulating LA was associated with 22% lower serum GGT (β (95% confidence interval): - 0.25 (- 0.31, - 0.18), P < 0.001), but only ≤9% lower for ALT and AST. Circulating LA and serum GGT associations differed by alcohol use and locality. CONCLUSION: Dietary and circulating LA were inversely associated with markers of impaired liver function, but not with glucose metabolism. Alcohol use may play a role in the association between LA and liver function. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PURE North-West Province South Africa study described in this manuscript is part of the PURE study. The PURE study is registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03225586; URL).
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".