MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407290059 · doi:10.3389/fnut.2025.1488907

Exploring avocado consumption and health: a scoping review and evidence map

2025· review· en· W4407290059 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen A. Fleming, Tristen L. Paul, Rachel A. F. Fleming, Alison K. Ventura, Megan A. McCrory, Corrie M. Whisner, Paul A. Spagnuolo, Louise Dye, Jana Kraft, Nikki A. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Nutrition · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Physiology and Cultivation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPsychological interventionOverweightEnvironmental healthMedicineSystematic reviewGerontologyScopusObesityMEDLINEBiologyPathologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This scoping review evaluates the breadth of research on avocado intake and health, considering all populations and health outcomes (registered on Open Science Foundation at https://osf.io/nq5hk). Design: Any human intervention or observational study where effects could be isolated to consumption of avocado were included. A systematic literature search through April 2024 was conducted (PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and CENTRAL) and supplemented by backwards citation screening. Dual screening, data extraction, and conflict resolution were performed by three reviewers and an interactive evidence map was created. Results: After deduplication, 8,823 unique records were retrieved; 58 articles met inclusion criteria, comprising 45 unique studies (28 interventions, 17 observational studies). Studies were largely conducted in the United States or Latin America and generally included adults, with overweight/obesity, frequently with elevated lipid concentrations. Interventions assessed the impact of diets enriched in monounsaturated fatty acids, diets higher/lower in carbohydrates, or in free-feeding conditions. Larger amounts of avocados were used in interventions than commonly consumed in observational studies (60-300 vs. 0-10 g/d, respectively). Blood lipids, nutrient bioavailability, cardiovascular risk, glycemia, and anthropometric variables were the most common outcomes reported across all studies. Conclusion: Future recommendations for novel research include the study of: European, Asian, adolescent or younger, and senior populations; dose-response designs and longer length interventions; dietary compensation; and the need for greater replication. The results have been made public and freely available, and a visual, interactive map was created to aid in science translation. This evidence map should enable future meta-analyses, enhance communication and transparency in avocado research, and serve as a resource for policy guidance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.008
Bibliometrics0.0390.033
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.012 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NutritionSame topicPlant Physiology and Cultivation StudiesFrench-language works237,207