Dietary Inflammatory Index in relation to Type 2 Diabetes: A Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Aims . Epidemiologic studies show a strong association between chronic inflammation and type 2 diabetes (T2D). Diet may also affect the risk of T2D by modulating inflammation. This meta‐analysis aimed to assess the relation of dietary inflammatory index (DII) and risk of T2D. Methods . PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched from their inception to September 2020 to identify relevant studies. Relative risks, hazard ratios, or odds ratios (OR), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), were calculated and pooled using a random‐effects model. Results . A total of 48 different studies, with a total sample size of 1,687,424 participants, were eligible to be included in this meta‐analysis. In the overall analysis, no significant association was observed between DII and risk of T2D (OR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.15), with significant evidence for heterogeneity ( I 2 = 96.5%, P < 0.001); however, higher DII was identified as being significantly related to increased risk of T2D in high quality studies (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.15 to 2.17). In the stratified analysis by the dietary assessment tool, background disease, and sex of participants, DII showed no significant association with T2D. Conclusions . Higher DII might be associated with an increased risk of T2D. Additional well‐designed studies are required to confirm this finding.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".