Effects of Diets Enriched with Conventional or High-Oleic Canola Oils on Vascular Endothelial Function: A Sub-Study of the Canola Oil Multi-Centre Intervention Trial 2 (COMIT-2), a Randomized Crossover Controlled Feeding Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial replacement of saturated fatty acids (SFA) with unsaturated fatty acids is recommended to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), including oleic acid, are associated with lower CVD risk. Measurement of flow-mediated dilation of the brachial artery (FMD) is the gold standard for measuring endothelial function and predicts CVD risk. This study examined the effect of partially replacing SFA with MUFA from conventional canola oil and high-oleic acid canola oil on FMD. Participants (n = 31) with an elevated waist circumference plus ≥1 additional metabolic syndrome criterion completed FMD measures as part of the Canola Oil Multi-Centre Intervention Trial 2 (COMIT-2), a multi-center, double-blind, three-period crossover, controlled feeding randomized trial. Diet periods were 6 weeks, separated by ≥4-week washouts. Experimental diets were provided during all feeding periods. Diets only differed by the fatty acid profile of the oils: canola oil (CO; 17.5% energy from MUFA, 9.2% polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), 6.6% SFA), high-oleic acid canola oil (HOCO; 19.1% MUFA, 7.0% PUFA, 6.4% SFA), and a control oil blend (CON; 11% MUFA, 10% PUFA, 12% SFA). Multilevel models were used to examine the effect of the diets on FMD. No significant between-diet differences were observed for average brachial artery diameter (CO: 6.70 ± 0.15 mm, HOCO: 6.57 ± 0.15 mm, CON: 6.73 ± 0.14 mm; p = 0.72), peak brachial artery diameter (CO: 7.11 ± 0.15 mm, HOCO: 7.02 ± 0.15 mm, CON: 6.41 ± 0.48 mm; p = 0.80), or FMD (CO: 6.32 ± 0.51%, HOCO: 6.96 ± 0.49%, CON: 6.41 ± 0.48%; p = 0.81). Partial replacement of SFA with MUFA from CO and HOCO had no effect on FMD in participants with or at risk of metabolic syndrome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".