Carbohydrates Intake vs. Fats Intake Correlate With Blood Pressure in Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Teenagers are experiencing a shift in their eating habits toward fast food, which is high in unhealthy fats and carbohydrates and correlates with an increased risk of obesity and hypertension due to its high‐calorie density, large portion sizes, and accessibility. This systematic review compares the evidence on the carbohydrate and fat intakes toward adolescent hypertension. This evidence‐based analysis is based on the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 statement. The data were processed qualitatively to assess the risk of bias using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) standards as the threshold. This review was registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD42024599534. Published studies up to March 2024 sourced from PubMed Central, Springer Link, EBSCO Host, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar were used as databases in this study. Nine studies were included in this systematic review. Eight studies (88.9%) showed a relation between carbohydrates and fat intake toward adolescent hypertension. From six studies that mainly discussed comparing carbohydrates and fat intake and the risk of hypertension in adolescents, three out of six studies agreed that the risk of hypertension is more closely associated with higher fat intake than with carbohydrate intake. In summary, both excessive carbohydrate and fat intake are related to the development of hypertension in adolescents, but higher fat intake might show more outcomes in developing hypertension. This study is expected to be a theoretical foundation for future research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".