Important Food Sources of Fructose-Containing Sugars and Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Overconsumption of fructose-containing sugars may increase blood pressure. Whether this effect is mediated by the food matrix is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials of the effect of food sources of fructose-containing sugars at different levels of energy control on blood pressure (NCT02716870). We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library through January, 2020 for controlled trials ≥7d. Trial designs were prespecified based on energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars in the diet); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced in the diet) trials. Outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE. We included 76 trials (121 trial comparisons, N = 4 302) assessing 9 food sources (sugar-sweetened beverages [SSBs], sweetened dairy alternatives, 100% fruit juice, fruit, dried fruit, sweets, added nutritive sweetener, sweetened cereal grains/bars, and mixed sources) across the 4 levels of energy control. Total fructose-containing sugars decreased SBP (mean difference, −2.76 mmHg [95% CI, −4.36, −1.16], P = 0.001) and DBP (−1.26 mmHg [−2.29, −0.23], P = 0.016) in addition trials and the removal of these sugars decreased SBP (−1.79 mmHg [−3.36, −0.21], P = 0.026) in subtraction trials. There was evidence of interaction by food source with fruit decreasing and sweets and mixed sources increasing SBP and DBP in addition trials and the removal of SSBs decreased SBP in subtraction trials. The certainty of evidence was generally moderate to low for all food source-outcome relationships, except for the decreasing-effect of fruit on DBP in addition trials (high). Food source and energy control appear to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on blood pressure. The evidence provides a good indication that fruit decreases while excess calories from SSBs, sweets and mixed sources increase blood pressure. More high-quality trials of different food sources are needed to improve our estimates. 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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.030 | 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".