MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Almond fatty acid bioavailability in hyperlipidemia: A randomized controlled crossover trial

2017· article· en· W4389022985 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNuts composition and effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of SaskatchewanSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoPhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationAlmond Board of CaliforniaCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsLinoleic acidBioavailabilityCrossover studyHyperlipidemiaFood scienceFecesChemistryFatty acidConjugated linoleic acidAnimal scienceMedicineBiochemistryBiologyEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Almond intake is associated with reduced coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, yet concern remains that weight gain may occur due to their high fat content and subsequent energy density. Our aim was to assess fatty acid bioavailability of almond intake, using linoleic acid (18:2n‐6) as a marker of fat absorption, in individuals with hyperlipidemia as part of a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods In a randomized crossover study, 27 hyperlipidemic men and women incorporated 3 isoenergetic (mean 423 kcal/d) supplements into a NCEP Step 2 diet each for 1 month. Supplements provided 22.2% of energy and consisted of full‐dose almonds (73±3 g/d), half‐dose almonds plus half‐dose muffins, and full‐dose muffins (control), matched for linoleic acid content. Fecal samples were collected at the end of each treatment period. Fatty acids were measured in the dietary supplements and freeze‐dried fecal samples using gas chromatography. Results Twenty‐two participants had fecal fatty acid data available from all 3 dietary phases for analyses. In the control supplement, linoleic acid comprised of 5.4 mg/g (536 mg/d), comparable to the linoleic acid content of the almond supplement of 5.7 mg/g (428 mg/d). There was a significantly greater amount of fecal linoleic acid following almond intake (7201±1147 mg/d) compared with the control (1802±1102 mg/d), adjusted for linoleic intake (P<0.01). For every half dose increase in almond intake (i.e. approximately 37.5 g almonds/day) there was a 2693 mg/day increase in linoleic acid excreted in the feces (P‐trend = 0.0024). Conclusions A dose‐response was observed with increasing linoleic acid excretion with increased almond intake. The fat content of almonds may not be as bioavailable as predicted by Atwater factors as suggested by the increased linoleic acid excretion with almond intake compared to the control. With less fat being bioavailable, meaning less kilocalories may be absorbed by the body, the concern of the ‘high energy density’ of almonds and risk of weight gain may be overstated. Protocol registration: clinicaltrials.gov identifier, [NCT00507520] Support or Funding Information Source of Research Support: Almond Board of California; PSI Foundation; Banting and Best Diabetes Centre; Canadian Diabetes Association

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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