MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297222912 · doi:10.3390/nu14193986

Effect of Important Food Sources of Fructose-Containing Sugars on Inflammatory Biomarkers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Feeding Trials

2022· review· en· W4297222912 on OpenAlexafffund
Xinye Qi, Laura Chiavaroli, Danielle Lee, Sabrina Ayoub‐Charette, Tauseef Khan, Fei Au‐Yeung, Amna Ahmed, Annette Cheung, Qi Liu, Sonia Blanco Mejía, Vivian L. Choo, Russell J. de Souza, Thomas M.S. Wolever, Lawrence A. Leiter, Cyril W.C. Kendall, David J.A. Jenkins, John L. Sievenpiper

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityGlycemic Index LaboratoriesUniversity of TorontoHamilton Health SciencesImpactUniversity of SaskatchewanPopulation Health Research InstituteSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and DiabetesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacsGovernment of CanadaDiabetes CanadaCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsFructoseMeta-analysisSugarFood scienceSystematic reviewHigh-fructose corn syrupMedicineBiotechnologyBiologyMEDLINEBiochemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Fructose-containing sugars as sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) may increase inflammatory biomarkers. Whether this effect is mediated by the food matrix at different levels of energy is unknown. To investigate the role of food source and energy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials on the effect of different food sources of fructose-containing sugars on inflammatory markers at different levels of energy control. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through March 2022 for controlled feeding trials ≥ 7 days. Four trial designs were prespecified by energy control: substitution (energy matched replacement of sugars); addition (excess energy from sugars added to diets); subtraction (energy from sugars subtracted from diets); and ad libitum (energy from sugars freely replaced). The primary outcome was C-reactive protein (CRP). Secondary outcomes were tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α) and interleukin-6 (IL-6). Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. GRADE assessed certainty of evidence. Results: We identified 64 controlled trials (91 trial comparisons, n = 4094) assessing 12 food sources (SSB; sweetened dairy; sweetened dairy alternative [soy]; 100% fruit juice; fruit; dried fruit; mixed fruit forms; sweetened cereal grains and bars; sweets and desserts; added nutritive [caloric] sweetener; mixed sources [with SSBs]; and mixed sources [without SSBs]) at 4 levels of energy control over a median 6-weeks in predominantly healthy mixed weight or overweight/obese adults. Total fructose-containing sugars decreased CRP in addition trials and had no effect in substitution, subtraction or ad libitum trials. No effect was observed on other outcomes at any level of energy control. There was evidence of interaction/influence by food source: substitution trials (sweetened dairy alternative (soy) and 100% fruit juice decreased, and mixed sources (with SSBs) increased CRP); and addition trials (fruit decreased CRP and TNF-α; sweets and desserts (dark chocolate) decreased IL-6). The certainty of evidence was moderate-to-low for the majority of analyses. Conclusions: Food source appears to mediate the effect of fructose-containing sugars on inflammatory markers over the short-to-medium term. The evidence provides good indication that mixed sources that contain SSBs increase CRP, while most other food sources have no effect with some sources (fruit, 100% fruit juice, sweetened soy beverage or dark chocolate) showing decreases, which may be dependent on energy control. Clinicaltrials.gov: (NCT02716870).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.034
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicDiet, Metabolism, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207