The role of plant-based dietary patterns in reducing COVID-19 risk and/or severity in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Plant-based dietary patterns (PBDs) might protect against COVID-19 risk and reduce severity of infection. This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to examine the association between PBDs and risk of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and/or mortality, in adults. METHODS: Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for observational studies, published in English up to 3rd April 2023, comparing the highest with the lowest adherence to a specific PBD. Data were screened, extracted, and risk of bias assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, by independent reviewers. RESULTS: Seven studies (one cross-sectional, three case-control, and three prospective cohort), reporting on 649,315 participants, were eligible. Across them, there were 8512 events of COVID-19 infection (six studies), and 206 events of COVID-19 hospitalization (four studies), in addition to one study reporting on a composite hospitalization outcome (740 events). The pooled analysis showed that PBDs are associated with a 59% (odds ratio (OR) = 0.41, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.23-0.59; two studies) and 18% (OR = 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.85; three studies) reduction in COVID-19 infection risk in case-control and cohort studies, respectively. The pooled analysis of one case-control and two cohort studies showed an inverse association between high adherence to a PBD and risk of COVID-19 hospitalization (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.04-0.72). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest a protective role of PBDs against the risk of COVID-19 infection and severity. More studies are needed to establish the association between PBDs and risk of ICU admission and mortality due to COVID-19.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".