MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408845761 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuaf030

Processed Meat Intake and Changes in Weight, Waist, Body Mass Index, and Fat Mass: Systematic Literature Review, Meta-Analysis, and GRADE Assessment of Cohort Studies of Adults

2025· review· en· W4408845761 on OpenAlexaff
Mina Nicole Händel, Jeanett Friis Rohde, Sofus C. Larsen, Thorkild I. A. Sørensen, Berit L. Heitmann

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
FundersOak Foundation
KeywordsWaistMeta-analysisMedicineBody mass indexCohort studySystematic reviewConfidence intervalCohortMEDLINEWeight managementDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineOverweightBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Previous reviews have indicated that abstaining from processed meat may play a part in weight management; however, the certainty of these results has not been assessed systematically. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the association between processed meat intake (including studies specifically mentioning "processed meat" and/or listing processed meat items and subsequent change in weight, waist circumference, body mass index (BMI), and fat mass among adults by summarizing evidence of cohort studies. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was performed in Embase and Medline via Ovid (including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) from inception to June 2024. DATA EXTRACTION: The data were extracted by 2 reviewers independently. The certainty in the estimates was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) tool, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. DATA ANALYSES: The search resulted in a total of 2974 potential articles, of which 11 cohort studies (6 unique studies) were eligible for inclusion. Three studies (n = 381 291) were included in the random-effects model of measured body weight, resulting in a summary increase of 0.26 kg/y per 1 daily serving of processed meat (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.03-0.48; τ2: 0.03; I2: 92.95%). Four studies (n = 51 310) were included in the random-effects model of measured waist circumference, resulting in a summary increase of 0.14 cm/y per 1 daily serving of processed meat (95% CI, 0.02-0.26; τ2: 0.01; I2: 81.12%). The certainties of these estimates were low, due to serious risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The analyses suggested a very weak association between increased processed meat intake and subsequent increase in measured weight, larger measured waist circumference, increase in self-reported BMI, and an increase in fat mass. However, due to methodological limitations the certainty of these results was low, and cautious interpretation of the results is warranted. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration No. CRD42022335022.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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 venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207