Portfolio Dietary Pattern and Cardiovascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The evidence for the Portfolio dietary pattern, a plant-based dietary pattern that combines recognized cholesterol-lowering foods (nuts, plant protein, viscous fibre, plant sterols), has not been summarized. Objective To update the European Association for the Study of Diabetes clinical practice guidelines for nutrition therapy, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials using GRADE of the effect of the Portfolio dietary pattern on the primary therapeutic lipid target for cardiovascular disease prevention, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and other established cardiometabolic risk factors. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library through April 19, 2018. We included controlled trials ≥ 3-weeks assessing the effect of the Portfolio dietary pattern on cardiometabolic risk factors compared with an energy-matched control diet free of Portfolio dietary pattern components. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcome was LDL-C. Data were pooled using the generic inverse-variance method and expressed as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed (Cochran Q statistic) and quantified (I2-statistic). GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence. Results Eligibility criteria were met by 7 trial comparisons in 439 participants with hyperlipidemia, in which the Portfolio dietary pattern was given on a background of a National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Step II diet. The combination of a portfolio dietary pattern and NCEP Step II diet significantly reduced the primary outcome LDL-C by ~17% (MD, −0.73 mmol/L, [95% CI, −0.89 to −0.56 mmol/L]) as well as non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, apolipoprotein B, total cholesterol, triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, C-reactive protein, and estimated 10-year coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, compared with an NCEP Step 2 diet alone (p < 0.05). There was no effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol or body weight. The certainty of the evidence was high for LDL-cholesterol and most lipid outcomes and moderate for all others outcomes. Conclusions Current evidence demonstrates that the Portfolio dietary pattern leads to clinically meaningful improvements in LDL-C as well as other established cardiometabolic risk factors and estimated 10-year CHD risk.
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 | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".