Dried Fruits: Bioactives, Effects on Gut Microbiota, and Possible Health Benefits—An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dried fruits contain many bioactive compounds broadly classified as phytochemicals including phenolics, flavonoids, carotenoids, proanthocyanidins, stilbenes, chalcones/dihydrochalcones, and phytoestrogens. These compounds have antioxidant effects that may benefit health. Dried fruits are also a diverse group of foods with varying fibre contents. The evaluation of the biological activity of these bioactive compounds, including their bioaccessibility and bioavailability, may contribute to the understanding of the health effects of dried fruits. Limited evidence suggests that dried fruits (raisins, cranberries, dates, and prunes) affect human gut microbiota composition in a potentially beneficial manner (in terms of effects on Bifidobacteria, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Lactobacillus, Ruminococcaceae, Klebsiella spp., and Prevotella spp.). There is little epidemiological evidence about the association of dried fruit consumption with cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality, as well as the risk of type 2 diabetes or obesity. Clinical trial evidence for the effects of dried fruit consumption on cardiovascular risk factors, including glycaemic control, is mixed. Clinical trial evidence suggests prunes might preserve bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. Consumption of dried fruits is associated with higher-quality diets. Studies are needed to increase our understanding of the health effects of dried fruits and the underlying biological mechanisms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".