The association between skipping breakfast and cardiovascular disease: a meta analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a global health challenge significantly influenced by healthy behaviors. Nutritional research highlights the critical role of eating habits in the development of CVD. However, existing studies on the association between skipping breakfast and CVD have produced conflicting results. To address this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis to clarify the relationship. Method We performed a systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science databases for studies published before October 2024 to identify and assess prospective research on the relationship between skipping breakfast and CVD. In the study selection process, the PECOS framework and stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. The quality of the initially included studies was independently assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Data from the included studies, including odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), were extracted and analyzed using Stata 16.0. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to validate the results. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 and Cochrane Q tests, and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's test and funnel plot analysis. Results This meta-analysis includes 2,383,813 participants. As a result, nine studies included 13 data points. Skipping breakfast, compared to regular breakfast consumption, was associated with an increased risk of CVD (OR: 1.17, 95% CI:1.09–1.26). Cardiovascular diseases were further categorized into coronary artery disease (CAD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease mortality (CDM). Skipping breakfast was associated with an increased risk of CAD (OR: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05–1.24), stroke (RR: 1.15, 95% CI: 1.01–1.3), and CDM (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.20–1.84). Conclusion Skipping breakfast is significantly associated with increased CVD risk. Our analysis elucidates multiple pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this association. These findings collectively suggest that regular breakfast consumption may confer cardiovascular protective benefits. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42025630303 , PROSPERO CRD 42025630303.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.075 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".