<i>Trans</i> Fatty Acid Biomarkers and Incident Type 2 Diabetes: Pooled Analysis of 12 Prospective Cohort Studies in the Fatty Acids and Outcomes Research Consortium (FORCE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Trans fatty acids (TFAs) have harmful biologic effects that could increase the risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D), but evidence remains uncertain. We aimed to investigate the prospective associations of TFA biomarkers and T2D by conducting an individual participant-level pooled analysis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included data from an international consortium of 12 prospective cohorts and nested case-control studies from six nations. TFA biomarkers were measured in blood collected between 1990 and 2008 from 25,126 participants aged ≥18 years without prevalent diabetes. Each cohort conducted de novo harmonized analyses using a prespecified protocol, and findings were pooled using inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was explored by prespecified between-study and within-study characteristics. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 13.5 years, 2,843 cases of incident T2D were identified. In multivariable-adjusted pooled analyses, no significant associations with T2D were identified for trans/trans-18:2, relative risk (RR) 1.09 (95% CI 0.94-1.25); cis/trans-18:2, 0.89 (0.73-1.07); and trans/cis-18:2, 0.87 (0.73-1.03). Trans-16:1n-9, total trans-18:1, and total trans-18:2 were inversely associated with T2D (RR 0.81 [95% CI 0.67-0.99], 0.86 [0.75-0.99], and 0.84 [0.74-0.96], respectively). Findings were not significantly different according to prespecified sources of potential heterogeneity (each P ≥ 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Circulating individual trans-18:2 TFA biomarkers were not associated with risk of T2D, while trans-16:1n-9, total trans-18:1, and total trans-18:2 were inversely associated. Findings may reflect the influence of mixed TFA sources (industrial vs. natural ruminant), a general decline in TFA exposure due to policy changes during this period, or the relatively limited range of TFA levels.
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 | 0.031 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".