Effect of Barley &[Beta]‐Glucan Consumption on Lipid Markers for Cardiovascular Disease Risk Reduction: a Systematic Review & Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Recent interest in barley as a therapeutic food is driven by its high content of β‐glucan, a viscous soluble fibre known for its cholesterol lowering properties. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of RCTs investigating the cholesterol lowering potential of β‐glucan from barley sources on established clinical lipid targets for cardiovascular risk reduction: LDL‐C, non‐HDL‐C, and apoB. Design MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched. We included RCTs of ≥ 3 weeks duration assessing the effect of diets enriched with barley β‐glucan compared with controlled diets on LDL‐C, non‐HDL‐C, or apoB. Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data and assessed study quality and risk of bias. Data were pooled using the generic inverse variance method with random effects models and expressed as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed by the Cochran Q statistic and quantified by the I 2 statistic. Results 14 trials (N = 615) were included in the final analysis. A median dose of 6.5 and 6.9 g/day of barley β‐glucan for a median duration of 4 weeks significantly reduced LDL‐C (MD = −0.25 mmol/L [95% CI: −0.30, −0.20]) and non‐HDL‐C (MD = −0.31 mmol/L [95% CI: −0.39, −0.23]), respectively, with no significant changes to apoB levels, compared to control diets. There was evidence of considerable unexplained heterogeneity in the analysis of non‐HDL‐C (I 2 = 98%). Conclusions Pooled analyses show that barley β‐glucan have a modest lowering effect on LDL‐C and non‐HDL‐C. Inclusion of barley containing foods may be a strategy for achieving targets in cardiovascular disease risk reduction. Support or Funding Information Clinical Nutrition and Risk Factor Modification Centre, St. Michael's Hospital
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 | 0.013 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".