Glycemic Index versus Wheat Fiber on Arterial Wall Damage in Diabetes: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: High cereal fiber and low glycemic index (GI) diets are associated with reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in cohort studies. Clinical trial evidence on event incidence is lacking. Therefore, to make trial outcomes more directly relevant to CVD we compared the effect on carotid plaque development in diabetes of a low GI diet versus a whole grain wheat fiber diet. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: 169 men and women with well controlled type 2 diabetes were randomized to counseling on either low GI or whole grain wheat fiber diets for 3 years. Change in carotid vessel wall volume (VWV) (pre-specified primary endpoint) was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging as an indication of arterial damage. RESULTS: 134 of 169 randomized participants completed the study. No treatment differences were seen in VWV. However, on the whole grain wheat fiber diet, VWV increased significantly from baseline, 23 mm3 (95% CI 4, 41) (p=0.016), but not on the low GI diet, 8 mm3 (95% CI-10, 26) (p=0.381). The low GI diet resulted in preservation of renal function, as eGFR, compared to the reduction following the wheat fiber diet. HbA1c was modestly reduced over the first 9 months in the intention-to-treat analysis, and extended with greater compliance to 15 months in the per-protocol analysis. CONCLUSION: Since the low GI diet was similar to the whole wheat fiber diet recommended for cardiovascular risk reduction, the low GI diet may also be effective for CVD risk reduction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".