Relation of Food Sources of Fructose Containing Sugars With Incident Obesity Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sugars have been implicated in the epidemic of obesity. It is unclear whether food sources of fructose-containing sugars other than sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) are associated with increased risk of obesity. To assess the evidence of the relation of food sources of fructose-containing sugars with incident overweight or obesity, we undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library through Aug 2019. We included prospective cohort studies of ≥1 year. Two reviewers extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was incident overweight/obesity. Data were pooled using generic-inverse variance method (random effects) and expressed as relative risks (RR) for incident outcomes and ß-coefficients for WC with 95% confidence intervals (CI). GRADE assessed the certainty of evidence We included 12 and 8 prospective cohorts involving 181,295 adults and 31,717 children, respectively. Four food sources of fructose-containing sugars were identified: SSBs, 100% fruit juice, fruit and yogurt. There was no data available in children for yogurt or WC. SSBs were associated with increased incident overweight/obesity in children (RR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.44] but not in adults and increased incident abdominal obesity in both children (3.78 [1.08 to 13.25]) and adults (1.51 [1.11 to 2.06]), but there was no association with change in WC in adults. Fruit juice was associated with increased incident overweight/obesity in children (1.28 [1.07 to 1.53]) but not in adults, and there was no association with incident abdominal obesity in either children or adults or WC in adults. Fruit was associated with decreased incident overweight/obesity (0.87 [0.82 to 0.92]) and decreased WC (ß, −0.23 cm [−0.33 to −0.13]) in adults. Yogurt was associated with decreased incident abdominal obesity (0.65 [0.47 to 0.90]) in adults with no data available on WC. The certainty of the evidence was graded as “very low” to “moderate”. Current evidence indicates that the relation between fructose-containing sugars and obesity outcomes differs by food sources. More research of more food sources of sugars is needed to improve our certainty in the evidence. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02558920) ASN, Diabetes Canada, Banting and Best Diabetes Centre.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| 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".