Relation of Different Fruit and Vegetable Sources With Incident Cardiovascular Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Public health policies reflect concerns that certain fruit sources may not have the intended benefits and that vegetables should be preferred to fruit. We assessed the relation of fruit and vegetable sources with cardiovascular outcomes using a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies. Methods and Results MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane were searched through June 3, 2019. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality (Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale). Data were pooled (fixed effects), and heterogeneity (Cochrane‐Q and I 2 ) and certainty of the evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) were assessed. Eighty‐one cohorts involving 4 031 896 individuals and 125 112 cardiovascular events were included. Total fruit and vegetables, fruit, and vegetables were associated with decreased cardiovascular disease (risk ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.89–0.96]; 0.91 [0.88–0.95]; and 0.94 [0.90–0.97], respectively), coronary heart disease (0.88 [0.83–0.92]; 0.88 [0.84–0.92]; and 0.92 [0.87–0.96], respectively), and stroke (0.82 [0.77–0.88], 0.82 [0.79–0.85]; and 0.88 [0.83–0.93], respectively) incidence. Total fruit and vegetables, fruit, and vegetables were associated with decreased cardiovascular disease (0.89 [0.85–0.93]; 0.88 [0.86–0.91]; and 0.87 [0.85–0.90], respectively), coronary heart disease (0.81 [0.72–0.92]; 0.86 [0.82–0.90]; and 0.86 [0.83–0.89], respectively), and stroke (0.73 [0.65–0.81]; 0.87 [0.84–0.91]; and 0.94 [0.90–0.99], respectively) mortality. There were greater benefits for citrus, 100% fruit juice, and pommes among fruit sources and allium, carrots, cruciferous, and green leafy among vegetable sources. No sources showed an adverse association. The certainty of the evidence was “very low” to “moderate,” with the highest for total fruit and/or vegetables, pommes fruit, and green leafy vegetables. Conclusions Fruits and vegetables are associated with cardiovascular benefit, with some sources associated with greater benefit and none showing an adverse association. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03394339.
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 | 0.024 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".