The impact of a plant-based diet on indices of cardiovascular health in African Americans: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
African-American (AA) individuals are disproportionately affected by cardiovascular diseases. Plant-based diets (PBD) may be cardioprotective in part through their high antioxidant capacity and low inflammatory load. We tested the hypothesis that AA individuals adhering to a 100% PBD would have better vascular health than AA individuals following a typical American diet (TAD). Eighteen AA individuals participated; 9 (24 ± 4 years; 6 females) were following a PBD for 2.4 ± 0.8 years and 9 (21 ± 2 years; 5 females) were following a TAD. Blood lipids and C-reactive protein (CRP) were assessed. Peripheral and central blood pressure (BP) were measured, and vascular function tests included cerebrovascular reactivity to hypercapnia, brachial artery flow-mediated dilation and reactive hyperemia, and local heating-induced cutaneous hyperemia. Total (TC) and low‐density lipoprotein (LDL‐C) serum cholesterol was lower (TC: 142 ± 30 vs. 174 ± 36 mg/dL; LDL‐C: 76 ± 17 vs. 106 ± 33 mg/dL; p < 0.05 and d > 0.80 for both) and serum CRP tended to be lower (0.38 ± 0.18 mg/L vs. 0.96 ± 0.89 mg/L; p = 0.05, d = 0.91) in the PBD cohort. Brachial (b) and central (c) mean arterial BP (MAP) were lower in the PBD cohort (bMAP: 86 ± 5 vs. 91 ± 7 mm Hg; cMAP: 81 ± 5 vs. 87 ± 7 mm Hg; p < 0.05 and d > 0.80 for both). All indices of vascular function were similar between groups ( p > 0.05 for all). A PBD was associated with more optimal blood lipid concentrations and decreased peripheral and central BP in AA individuals, but this association was not present in the various indices of vascular function. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05344287.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".