Important Food Sources of Fructose-Containing Sugars and Postprandial Lipids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fructose providing excess calories has been shown to increase postprandial triglycerides (TAG). Whether this effect holds for different food sources of fructose-containing sugars is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials on the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control on postprandial blood lipids (NCT02716870). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched through June 1st, 2020 for controlled feeding trials ≥7-days assessing the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars on postprandial lipids. Trial designs were prespecified based on energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars by other macronutrients); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced by other macronutrients) trials. Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes were postprandial TAG and apoB48. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. We included 29 trials (60 trial comparisons, N = 943) assessing 5 food sources (SSBs, fruit, sweets and desserts, added caloric sweetener and mixed sources) across 4 levels of energy control. Total fructose-containing sugars increased postprandial TAG in substitution (MD: 0.17 mmol/L [95% CI: 0.05, 0.30], P = 0.007), addition (0.38 mmol/L [0.13, 0.62], P = 0.003), and ad libitum (0.17 mmol/L [0.02, 0.31], P = 0.024) trials and increased apoB48 in addition trials (0.12 g/L [0.07, 0.18], P < 0.001).There was evidence of interaction by food source with SSBs increasing postprandial TAG and apoB48 in addition trials and mixed sources increasing postprandial TAG in ad libitum trials. The certainty of the evidence was “moderate” for SSBs increasing TAG in addition trials and mixed sources increasing TAG in ad libitum trials and “low” for all other comparisons. Food source more than energy control appears to mediate fructose-containing sugars on postprandial lipids. Good evidence suggests that SSBs and mixed sources increase postprandial lipids while evidence is less certain for the lack of effect of other food sources. More high-quality trials of different food sources are needed. Primary: Diabetes Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".