MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4324140412 · doi:10.1161/circ.147.suppl_1.p214

Abstract P214: The Portfolio Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in US Adults

2023· article· en· W4324140412 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea J. Glenn, Marta Guasch‐Ferré, Vasanti Malik, Cyril W.C. Kendall, JoAnn E. Manson, Eric B. Rimm, Walter C. Willett, Qi Sun, David J.A. Jenkins, John L. Sievenpiper, Frank B. Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)Proportional hazards modelConfidence intervalSaturated fatInternal medicineEpidemiologyDiseaseAtherosclerosis Risk in CommunitiesLower riskCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The plant-based portfolio dietary pattern includes recognized cholesterol-lowering foods shown to improve several cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in clinical trials. Epidemiological evidence on the association between longer-term adherence to the portfolio dietary pattern and CVD risk remains more limited. Objective: To examine whether the portfolio dietary pattern is associated with the risk of total CVD, coronary heart disease (CHD, including myocardial infarction and fatal coronary deaths), and stroke. Methods: Participants included 73,925 women in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) (1984-2014), 92,354 women in the NHS2 (1991-2017) and 43,970 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) (1986-2016) without CVD and cancer at baseline. Diet was assessed using validated food frequency questionnaires at baseline and every four years using a portfolio diet score (PDS) which positively ranks plant protein (soy & pulses), nuts, viscous fiber sources, phytosterols (mg/day) and plant monounsaturated fat sources, and negatively ranks foods high in saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), adjusted for covariates. Results: During up to 30 years of follow-up, 16,917 incident CVD cases, including 10,666 CHD cases and 6,473 stroke cases, were documented. After multivariable adjustment of lifestyle and other dietary factors, comparing the highest to the lowest quintile, participants with a higher PDS had a lower risk of total CVD (pooled HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.80-0.89, P trend<0.001), CHD (pooled HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.76-0.87, P trend<0.001) and stroke (pooled HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.81-0.97, P trend=0.001). In addition, a 25-percentile higher PDS was associated with a lower risk of total CVD (pooled HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.88-0.93), CHD (pooled HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.86-0.92) and stroke (pooled HR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.89-0.97). Results remained largely consistent across sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Conclusions: Greater adherence to the portfolio dietary pattern was consistently associated with lower risk of CVD, including CHD and stroke, in three large prospective cohorts of U.S. men and women.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicNutritional Studies and Diet→French-language works237,207→