Evidence for a Whole Grains and Coronary Heart Disease Health Claim
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review was undertaken to evaluate the evidence for a health claim about whole grain (WG) products and coronary heart disease (CHD). Studies were excluded if the American Association of Cereal Chemists International WG definition was not met or if foods with less than 51% WG ingredients were classified as WG. Seventeen of 26 clinical trials reported sufficient information to be included in the metaâ analysis. Overall, pooled analyses suggested that WG products have total and LDL cholesterolâlowering effects. No effect remained when trials that tested single grains high in βâglucan fibre, such as oats, and poor quality studies were removed from the analysis. The cohort studies were too heterogeneous to calculate pooled risk estimates. Four of 6 cohort studies reported at least one improved CHD outcome in individuals who consumed more WG products. Two of the positive studies were poor quality; the remaining 2 were separate analyses of the same cohort. Health Canada concluded that the evidence to date was not sufficient to support a health claim about WG products in general and CHD. The effect of βâglucan fibre cannot be generalized to other grains, including wheat, the main grain consumed in Canada. Health Canada has already accepted health claims about oat and barley products and cholesterolâlowering.
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 | 0.025 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".