Plant‐based dietary patterns and genetic susceptibility to obesity in the <scp>CARTaGENE</scp> cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study's objective was to examine whether adherence to three plant-based dietary indices (PDIs) mediated or moderated genetic susceptibility to obesity. METHODS: Baseline participants were 7037 adults (57% women, aged 55.6 ± 7.7 years) from the CARTaGENE cohort of Quebec adults. Two polygenic risk scores for BMI (PRS-BMI), 92 single-nucleotide polymorphisms and 2 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms, and three plant-based scores were calculated (overall, healthy, and unhealthy). Follow-up participants were 2258 adults with data on obesity outcomes, measured 6 years later. General linear models were used to examine the relationships between PRSs and PDI scores on obesity outcomes. Causal mediation analyses were conducted to assess mediation and interaction models. RESULTS: The overall- and healthy-PDIs and PRSs were significantly associated with obesity outcomes. Adherence to PDIs did not mediate or moderate genetic susceptibility to obesity. Associations between PRSs and obesity outcomes were partly mediated by meat intake cross-sectionally and whole grains intake among males both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Higher meat intake had a positive association with obesity outcomes, whereas higher whole grains intake had an inverse association. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that components of a plant-based diet and a shift away from animal products, specifically meat, might be beneficial for nutrition interventions, particularly among individuals with higher genetic risk of obesity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".