MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366817494 · doi:10.1101/2023.04.17.23288711

Sugar- or artificially-sweetened beverage consumption, physical activity, and risk of cardiovascular disease in US adults

2023· preprint· en· W4366817494 on OpenAlexaff
Lorena S. Pacheco, Deirdre K. Tobias, Yanping Li, Shilpa N Bhupathiraju, Walter C. Willett, David S. Ludwig, Cara B. Ebbeling, Danielle E. Haslam, Jean‐Philippe Drouin‐Chartier, Frank B. Hu, Marta Guasch‐Ferré

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSugarConsumption (sociology)Environmental healthPhysical activityFood scienceDiseaseMedicineChemistryInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The extent to which physical activity attenuates the detrimental effects of sugar (SSBs)- or artificially-sweetened beverages (ASBs) on the risk of cardiovascular disease is unknown. Methods We used Cox proportional-hazards models to calculate hazard ratios and 95% confidence interval [HR (CI)] between SSB or ASB intake and physical activity with cardiovascular disease risk among 65,730 women in the Nurses’ Health Study (1980-2016) and 39,418 men in the Health Professional’s Follow-up Study (1986-2016), who were free from chronic diseases at baseline. SSBs and ASBs were assessed every 4-years and physical activity biannually. Results A total of 13,269 cardiovascular events were ascertained during 3,001,213 person-years of follow-up. Compared with those that never/rarely consumed SSBs or ASBs, HR and 95% CI for cardiovascular disease for participants consuming ≥2 servings/day were 1.21 (95% CI,1.12 to 1.32; P -trend<0.001) and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.09; P -trend=0.06), respectively. In the joint analyses, for participants meeting and not meeting physical activity guidelines (<7.5 vs ≥7.5 MET-h/week) as well as consuming ≥2 servings/day of SSBs or ASBs, the HRs for cardiovascular disease were 1.15 (95% CI, 1.08 to 1.23) and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.91 to 1.02), and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.37 to 1.57) and 1.29 (95% CI, 1.22 to 1.37) respectively, compared with participants who met physical activity guidelines and never/rarely consumed these beverages. Similar patterns were observed when coronary heart disease and stroke were analyzed. Conclusions Our findings suggest that among physically active participants, higher SSB intake, but not ASBs, is associated with a higher cardiovascular risk. Our results support current recommendations to limit the intake of SSB and maintain adequate physical activity levels. Clinical Perspective What is new? Consumption of sugar- or artificially-sweetened beverages and physical activity are independently associated with cardiovascular disease; nevertheless, the role that physical activity plays in the associations between sugar- and artificially-sweetened beverages consumption and cardiovascular disease warrants further analysis since physical activity could offset the health risk that would have been induced by their consumption. In two US cohorts, not meeting physical activity guidelines jointly with a greater intake of sugar- or artificially-sweetened beverages was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease; however, even when individuals were physically active, higher consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages was associated with a higher cardiovascular risk. What are the clinical implications? Our results provide further evidence of the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and low physical activity as factors negatively impacting cardiovascular health. Our results support public health recommendations and policies to limit the intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and meet and maintain adequate physical activity levels.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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