Effects of lifestyle interventions on cardiovascular risk factors in South Asians: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden among South Asians is high. Lifestyle interventions have been effective in the primary prevention of CVD, but this has not been replicated, through a synthesis of randomised trials, in South Asians. METHODS: statistic. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was used to report on the quality of evidence (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration (PROSPERO). RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included. Twelve tested diet and physical activity interventions; 18 tested diet alone; and 5 tested physical activity alone. All reported effects of the intervention(s) on at least one established risk factor for CVD, including blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and blood lipids (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDLc), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) or triglycerides). No trials reported clinical CVD. There is moderate-quality evidence that diet and physical activity interventions improve SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.72 mm Hg, 95% CI -4.11 to -1.33) and DBP (MD -1.53 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.57 to -0.48); high-quality to moderate-quality evidence that diet-only interventions improve DBP (MD -2.05 mm Hg, 95% CI -2.93 to -1.16) and blood lipids (triglycerides (MD -0.10 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.06) and LDLc (MD -0.19 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.06)); and moderate-quality evidence that physical activity-only interventions improve SBP (MD -9.7 mm Hg, 95% CI -11.05 to -8.35), DBP (MD -7.29 mm Hg, 95% CI -8.42 to -6.16) and HDLc (MD 0.08 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.11) compared with usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle interventions improve blood pressure and blood lipid profiles in adult South Asians at risk of CVD. Tailored interventions should be used to modify cardiovascular risk factors in this at-risk group. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090419.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".