Plant-Forward Dietary Approaches to Reduce the Risk of Cardiometabolic Disease Among Hispanic/Latinx Adults Living in the United States: A Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiometabolic risk (CMR), including obesity, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and impaired glucose regulation, disproportionately affects Hispanic/Latinx adults in the United States (U.S.). Although plant-forward dietary patterns are established as cardioprotective, less is known about how dietary patterns within Hispanic/Latinx subgroups relate to CMR. Methods: A narrative review was conducted of observational studies among U.S. Hispanic/Latinx adults (≥18 years) examining defined dietary patterns (a priori, a posteriori, or hybrid) in relation to CMR outcomes (e.g., BMI, waist circumference, blood pressure, glucose, lipids). Risk of bias was assessed using an adapted Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results: Ten studies met inclusion criteria, including Seventh-day Adventist Latinx, Puerto Rican adults, Mexican American adults, Hispanic women, and a national Hispanic cohort. Plant-forward dietary patterns were associated with lower BMI and waist circumference, lower triglycerides and fasting glucose, and higher HDL-C. In contrast, energy-dense patterns characterized by refined grains, added sugars, processed meats, fried foods, solid fats, and sugar-sweetened beverages were associated with greater adiposity, poorer lipid profiles, and higher blood pressure. Traditional rice-and-beans–based patterns observed in Puerto Rican and Mexican American groups were associated with central adiposity and higher metabolic syndrome prevalence, despite modestly higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, and fiber. Study quality ranged from good (n = 4) to very good (n = 6). Conclusions: Across Hispanic/Latinx subgroups, plant-forward dietary patterns were associated with favorable cardiometabolic profiles, whereas refined and animal-based patterns aligned with higher CMR. Culturally grounded dietary counseling, along with additional longitudinal and intervention studies, is needed to support cardiometabolic health in these populations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".