Higher habitual flavonoid intakes are associated with a lower risk of peripheral artery disease hospitalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of nutrition in the primary prevention of peripheral artery disease (PAD), the third leading cause of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, is undetermined. Flavonoids may attenuate atherosclerosis and therefore persons who consume flavonoid-rich foods may have a lower risk of developing PAD. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to examine the association between flavonoid intake and PAD hospitalizations and investigate if the association differs according to established risk factors for PAD. METHODS: Baseline data from 55,647 participants of the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Study without PAD, recruited from 1993 to 1997, were cross-linked with Danish nationwide registries. Flavonoid intake was calculated from FFQs using the Phenol-Explorer database. Associations were examined using multivariable-adjusted restricted cubic splines based on Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: After a median [IQR] follow-up time of 21 [20-22] y, 2131 participants had been hospitalized for any PAD. The association between total flavonoid intake and total PAD hospitalizations was nonlinear, reaching a plateau at ∼750-1000 mg/d. Compared with the median flavonoid intake in quintile 1 (174 mg/d), an intake of 1000 mg/d was associated with a 32% lower risk of any PAD hospitalization (HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.60, 0.77), a 26% lower risk of atherosclerosis (HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.62, 0.88), a 28% lower risk of an aneurysm (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59, 0.88), and a 47% lower risk of a hospitalization for other peripheral vascular disease (HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.67). A higher total flavonoid intake was also significantly associated with a lower incidence of revascularization or endovascular surgery and lower extremity amputation. The association between total flavonoid intake and PAD hospitalizations differed according to baseline smoking status, alcohol intake, BMI, and diabetes status. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring the adequate consumption of flavonoid-rich foods, particularly in subpopulations prone to the development of atherosclerosis, may be a key strategy to lower the risk of PAD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".