The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 1 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials
Open accessAbstract
The effects of low-carbohydrate diets (≤45% of energy from carbohydrates) versus low-fat diets (≤30% of energy from fat) on metabolic risk factors were compared in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Twenty-three trials from multiple countries with a total of 2,788 participants met the predetermined eligibility criteria (from January 1, 1966 to June 20, 2011) and were included in the analyses. Data abstraction was conducted in duplicate by independent investigators. Both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets lowered weight and improved metabolic risk factors. Compared with participants on low-fat diets, persons on low-carbohydrate diets experienced a slightly but statistically significantly lower reduction in total cholesterol (2.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 0.8, 4.6), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 6.4), but a greater increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 4.7) and a greater decrease in triglycerides (-14.0 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: -19.4, -8.7). Reductions in body weight, waist circumference and other metabolic risk factors were not significantly different between the 2 diets. These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets at reducing weight and improving metabolic risk factors. Low-carbohydrate diets could be recommended to obese persons with abnormal metabolic risk factors for the purpose of weight loss. Studies demonstrating long-term effects of low-carbohydrate diets on cardiovascular events were warranted.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
77 Own result · 9 Own method · 5 Own interpretation · 2 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| TC:HDL ratio | 5 | -0.1 | -0.3, 0.1 | 1 | -0.5 | -0.8, -0.1 | 5 | -0.1 | -0.3, 0.1 | 5 | -0.1 | -0.3, 0.1 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of those, 23 studies met all of the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| SBP, mmHg | 18 | -1.0 | -3.5, 1.5 | 10 | -0.1 | -2.5, 2.3 | 17 | -1.4 | -3.9, 1.2 | 17 | -1.6 | -4.2, 1.0 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Weight, kg | 22 | -1.0 | -2.2, 0.2 | 12 | -1.3 | -2.8, 0.2 | 19 | -1.3 | -2.5, -0.1 | 18 | -1.4 | -2.6, -0.2 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subgroup analyses by gender, diabetic status, level of carbohydrate restriction, and study duration did not identify statistically significant differences in the majority of metabolic risk factor reductions between low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| WC, cm | 10 | -0.1 | -0.6, 0.4 | 8 | -0.3 | -1.0, 0.5 | 8 | -0.2 | -0.7, 0.3 | 8 | -0.2 | -0.7, 0.3 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Insulin, IU/mL | 12 | -0.1 | -0.8, 0.6 | 8 | -0.1 | -1.0, 0.8 | 10 | -0.1 | -0.9, 0.7 | 10 | -0.3 | -0.9, 0.7 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| HDL, mg/dL | 19 | 3.3 | 1.9, 4.7 | 11 | 3.0 | 1.9, 4.1 | 18 | 3.4 | 1.9, 4.8 | 17 | 3.3 | 1.9, 4.8 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| TC:HDL ratio | 5 | -0.1 | -0.3, 0.1 | 1 | -0.5 | -0.8, -0.1 | 5 | -0.1 | -0.3, 0.1 | 5 | -0.1 | -0.3, 0.1 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, statistically significant heterogeneity was detected for body weight (I 2 = 85.7%,P < 0.001), systolic blood pressure (I 2 = 91.7%,P < 0.001), diastolic blood pressure (I 2 = 40.8%,P = 0.04), LDL cholesterol (I 2 = 50.0%,P= 0.01), HDL cholesterol(I 2 = 78.6%,P< 0.001),andratiooftotaltoHDLcholesterol (I 2 = 75.0%,P= 0.003)amongtrials.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- The quote only partly states this claim. 6
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pooled mean net changes in diastolic blood pressures and serum insulin were also not significant (data not shown).”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, 4 studies were conducted in patients with diabetes (23,26,28,29), 1 was conducted in patients with prediabetes (31), and 1 was conducted in patients with coronary heart disease (23).”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| TG, mg/dL | 20 | -14.0 -19.4, -8.7 | 12 | -11.2 -16.9, -5.5 | 19 | -13.4 -18.7, -8.1 | 18 | -13.6 -19.2, -8.0 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| DBP, mmHg | 18 | -0.7 | -1.6, 0.2 | 10 | -1.1 | -2.4, 0.2 | 17 | -0.8 | -1.7, 0.2 | 17 | -0.8 | -1.7, 0.2 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, in the younger age group, low-carbohydrate diets resulted in significantly greater reductions in systolic blood pressure (-2.7 mm Hg, 95% CI: -4.5 to -0.9), diastolic blood pressure (-1.5 mm Hg, -2.7 to -0.2), and serum insulin (-0.9 μIU/mL, -1.8 to -0.1) as compared with results in the older age groups.However, these findings were not statistically significant after adjustment for”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets lowered weight and improved metabolic risk factors.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Abstract
plaindirectn = 2,788- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled mean net changes in systolic blood pressure (-1.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.5, 1.5), ratio of total to HDL cholesterol (-0.1, 95% CI: -0.3, 0.1), and fasting blood glucose (-0.3 mg/dL, 95% CI: -1.9, 1.3) were not significantly different between the 2 diets.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Glucose, mg/dL | 14 | -0.3 | -1.9, 1.3 | 10 | -0.6 | -2.7, 1.4 | 13 | -0.4 | -2.1, 1.4 | 13 | -0.4 | -2.1, 1.4 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“All trials were parallel except for 1 trial that had a factorial design (13).”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled mean net changes in systolic blood pressure (-1.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.5, 1.5), ratio of total to HDL cholesterol (-0.1, 95% CI: -0.3, 0.1), and fasting blood glucose (-0.3 mg/dL, 95% CI: -1.9, 1.3) were not significantly different between the 2 diets.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These differences remained statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These studies included data from 2,788 trial participants (1,392 on low-carbohydrate diets and 1,396 on low-fat diets).”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plainn = 2,788- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| SBP, mmHg | 18 | -1.0 | -3.5, 1.5 | 10 | -0.1 | -2.5, 2.3 | 17 | -1.4 | -3.9, 1.2 | 17 | -1.6 | -4.2, 1.0 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled mean net changes and 95% confidence intervals representing differences between the diets in body weight (-1.0 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.2, 0.2) and waist circumference (-0.1 cm, 95% CI: -0.6, 0.4) reductions were not statistically significant.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The goal dietary nutritional composition varied across the studies, with carbohydrate consumption ranging from 4% to 45% (weighted mean, 23%) of energy intake in the low-carbohydrate group and fat ranging from 10% to 30% (weighted mean, 26%) of energy intake in the low-fat group.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled mean net changes in systolic blood pressure (-1.0 mm Hg, 95% CI: -3.5, 1.5), ratio of total to HDL cholesterol (-0.1, 95% CI: -0.3, 0.1), and fasting blood glucose (-0.3 mg/dL, 95% CI: -1.9, 1.3) were not significantly different between the 2 diets.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There was no significant heterogeneity in the net changes in total cholesterol (I 2 = 0.2%, P = 0.45), triglycerides (I 2 = 55.6%,P = 0.07), waist circumference (I 2 = 12.5%, P = 0.33), fasting blood glucose (I 2 = 41.2%,P = 0.06), or serum insulin (I 2 = 7.8%, P = 0.29) among these trials.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“| Insulin, IU/mL | 12 | -0.1 | -0.8, 0.6 | 8 | -0.1 | -1.0, 0.8 | 10 | -0.1 | -0.9, 0.7 | 10 | -0.3 | -0.9, 0.7 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Self-reported mean energy intake weighted by trial sample sizes was similar for both diets at approximately 2,000 kcal.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pooled mean net changes and 95% confidence intervals representing differences between the diets in body weight (-1.0 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.2, 0.2) and waist circumference (-0.1 cm, 95% CI: -0.6, 0.4) reductions were not statistically significant.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study duration ranged from 6 to 24 months, and 16 studies had an intervention duration of 12 months or longer”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Disagreement was resolved by consensus with additional investigators.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Data extraction and quality assessment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two investigators independently reviewed all potentially relevant publications and made decisions on inclusion.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Study selection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“the reduction in ratio of total to HDL cholesterol, which has been identified as a predictor of coronary heart disease (35), was not significantly different between the 2 diets.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Gardner, 1996, Association of small low-density lipoprotein particles with the incidence of coronary artery disease in men and women, JAMA source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two investigators independently abstracted the data in duplicate using a standardized data collection form.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Data extraction and quality assessment
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis had a sample size of 2,788, which provided the power to detect statistically significant mean differences, assess publication bias, and conduct sensitivity and subgroup analyses.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the present meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-carbohydrate diets with low-fat diets, we found that both diets were equally effective at reducing body weight and waist circumference.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline levels of body weight and metabolic risk factors were similar between the 2 diets in each study but varied among studies.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, losses to follow-up were substantial, especially in some trials (8,22,29).Almost half of the studies included in our meta-analysis had completion rates less than 70%.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > DISCUSSION
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Trial participants were usually not blinded to their assignment because of the nature of the intervention-most interventions provided dietary instruction, leaving food buying and/ or preparation to the participants.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets at reducing weight and improving metabolic risk factors.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Abstract
hedgedn = 2,788- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data abstraction was conducted in duplicate by independent investigators.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conducted this meta-analysis following a stringent protocol.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that low-carbohydrate diets are at least as effective as low-fat diets for weight loss, regardless of gender, age, length of intervention, diabetes status, and level of carbohydrate restriction.”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > DISCUSSION
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Many clinical trials of low-carbohydrate diets have small sample sizes and insufficient statistical power to detect small changes in metabolic risk factors that may have public health importance.
“Many clinical trials of lowcarbohydrate diets have small sample sizes and insufficient statistical power to detect small changes in metabolic risk factors that may have public health importance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Low-carbohydrate diets may include significant amounts of fat and cholesterol, which have been associated with elevated LDL cholesterol levels, raising concern about adverse effects on metabolic risk factors.
“Because lowcarbohydrate diets may include significant amounts of fat and cholesterol, which have been associated with elevated low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels, there is concern about their adverse effects on metabolic risk factors.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Previous meta-analyses have included studies with CHO ranging from 20 g/d upto 40 -45 % at the beginning of the intervention (15,21)”
From Effects of low-carbohydrate diets v. low-fat diets on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (2016) · cites this paper as [21]
In the citing paper
“In contrast, a recent meta-analysis showed that both low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets reduced LDL cholesterol levels, although the reduction was less for persons assigned to low-carbohydrate diets (25).”
From Effects of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets: A Randomized Trial (2014) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“Our results with regard to body weight are consistent with those of other trials (23, 24) and a recent meta-analysis (25).”
From Effects of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets: A Randomized Trial (2014) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“The decreases in HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels that we observed were within the range reported in previous weight-loss studies (25).”
From Effects of Low-Carbohydrate and Low-Fat Diets: A Randomized Trial (2014) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“| Insulin, IU/mL | 12 | -0.1 | -0.8, 0.6 | 8 | -0.1 | -1.0, 0.8 | 10 | -0.1 | -0.9, 0.7 | 10 | -0.3 | -0.9, 0.7 |”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > S52 Hu et al.
Reported -0.3 · recomputed -0.1
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > Data synthesis and analysis
“longer (≥12 months intervention) versus shorter (<12 months) study duration”
§ Systematic Reviews and Meta-and Pooled Analyses Effects of Low-Carbohydrate Diets Versus Low-Fat Diets on Metabolic Risk Factors: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials > RESULTS
“participants who were on low-carbohydrate diets for more than 1 year (-0.9 kg, 95% CI: -1.6, -0.3)”
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
(1998) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e565682010-001 · Cited by 9,453
Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008
Flegal, K. M. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2009.2014 · Cited by 7,580
Trumbo, P., Schlicker, S., Yates, A. A., & Poos, M. (2002) · Journal of the American Dietetic Association · doi:10.1016/s0002-8223(02)90346-9 · Cited by 5,993
Global burden of obesity in 2005 and projections to 2030
Kelly, T., Yang, W., Chen, C.-S., Reynolds, K., & He, J. (2008) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/ijo.2008.102 · Cited by 3,319
Self-citationLichtenstein, A. H., Appel, L. J., Brands, M., Carnethon, M., Daniels, S., Franch, H. A., Franklin, B., Kris-Etherton, P., Harris, W. S., Howard, B., et al. (2006) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.106.176158 · Cited by 2,705
Weight Loss with a Low-Carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or Low-Fat Diet
Shai, I., Schwarzfuchs, D., Henkin, Y., Shahar, D. R., Witkow, S., Greenberg, I., Golan, R., Fraser, D., Bolotin, A., Vardi, H., et al. (2008) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0708681 · Cited by 2,143
Comparison of Weight-Loss Diets with Different Compositions of Fat, Protein, and Carbohydrates
Sacks, F. M., Bray, G. A., Carey, V. J., Smith, S. R., Ryan, D. H., Anton, S. D., McManus, K., Champagne, C. M., Bishop, L. M., Laranjo, N., et al. (2009) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0804748 · Cited by 1,966
A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity
Foster, G. D., Wyatt, H. R., Hill, J. O., McGuckin, B. G., Brill, C., Mohammed, B. S., Szapary, P. O., Rader, D. J., Edman, J. S., & Klein, S. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa022207 · Cited by 1,794
Identifying differentially expressed genes using false discovery rate controlling procedures
Reiner, A., Yekutieli, D., & Benjamini, Y. (2003) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btf877 · Cited by 1,765
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–416 of 416
Ding, M., & Liu, L. (2024) · Iranian Journal of Public Health · doi:10.18502/ijph.v53i8.16275
“Results from a randomised controlled trials suggest that very low carbohydrate diets are more effective than low-fat diets for rapid weight loss (10).”
BackgroundSon, Y.-I., & Lee, S.-K. (2025) · Journal of Nutrition and Health · doi:10.4163/jnh.2025.58.2.179
Schweickart, A., Peng, C., Zeleznik, O. A., Dartora, W. J., Hurd, M. A., Buga, A., Kackley, M. L., Clish, C. B., McIntire, L. B., Volek, J. S., et al. (2025) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2025.08.18.25333805
“The metabolic reprogramming of hypocaloric diets has been associated with increased insulin sensitivity, weight reduction, and improved lipid profiles, all of which could potentially modulate breast cancer risk 25 .”
Santos-Alvarado, M. I., Rodríguez, P. B. D., Ruíz-García, F., Viñas-Dozal, J. C., Gutiérrez-Aguilar, P., & López‐Amador, N. (2025) · Qeios · doi:10.32388/cabn57
The battle over “food addiction”. Translation into Russian
Lustig, R. H. (2025) · Психофармакология и биологическая наркология · doi:10.17816/phbn691855
Macronutrient content and quality, and risk of multimorbidity in the UK Biobank
Vázquez‐Fernández, A., Yévenes‐Briones, H., Baylín, A., Caballero, F. F., & López‐García, E. (2025) · The Journals of Gerontology Series A · doi:10.1093/gerona/glaf267 · Cited by 1
Arciero, P. J., Arciero, K. M., Poe, M., Mohr, A. E., Ives, S. J., Arciero, A., Boyce, M., Zhang, J., Haas, M., Valdez, E., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20001248
Hardy, D. S., Racette, S. B., Garvin, J. T., Gebrekristos, H. T., & Baye, T. M. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14526513
A consensus statement from the European Society for Clinical Investigation
Carbone, F., Després, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Neeland, I. J., Garruti, G., Busetto, L., Liberale, L., Ministrini, S., Vilahur, G., Schindler, T. H., et al. (2025) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Iyengar, S., Kaur, J., Singh, A., Sahay, I., Kumar, A., Kolke, S., Raut, M., & Singh, R. K. (2026) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2026.1718156
“Conventional concerns about low-carbohydrate diets focus on LDL-C elevations and potential cardiovascular risk (51–53).”
Retracted-, P. D. P., & Pawar, D. (2025) · International Ayurvedic Medical Journal · doi:10.46607/iamj0713122025
Khalafi, M., Maleki, A. H., Ehsanifar, M., Aghaeinejad, M., Sakhaei, M. H., Rosenkranz, S. K., Symonds, M. E., & Ramezani, F. (2026) · Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · doi:10.1080/10408398.2026.2681938
“Overall, for individuals with over-weight or obesity, with elevated visceral or liver fat, CRDs, in particular VLCDs, can be recommended as a potential targeted dietary strategy, particularly in personalized versions that tailor carbohydrate and daily caloric intake.”
InfluentialKarimi, M., Shiraseb, F., Mirzababaei, A., Khadem, A., Zarrinvafa, Z., Khorraminezhad, L., Bagheri, R., Wong, A., & Mirzaei, K. (2026) · Journal of Health Population and Nutrition · doi:10.1186/s41043-026-01292-z
Guo, H., Wang, L., & Xiao, F. (2026) · Nutrition Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2026.104955
Corrado, R., Raffa, S. D., Bauer, E. M., Eisenberg, D., Weare-Regales, N., Antonovich, N., Loblack, A., Berdiel, E., Kelber, M. S., Klimovich, J., et al. (2026) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/annals-26-00676
Metadata
- Authors
- Hu, T., Mills, K. T., Yao, L., Demanelis, K., Eloustaz, M., Yancy, W. S., Kelly, T. N., He, J., & Bazzano, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Tulane University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bazzano, Lydia A.
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2012-10-01
- Volume
- 176
- Issue
- suppl_7
- Pages
- S44-S54
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- PMC
- PMC3530364
- OpenAlex
- W2135997989
- Semantic Scholar
- 471641c6f74cd8ae96d1ba087339e5d2efad13ce
- Cited by
- 417
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 37 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 20
- FWCI
- 3.51
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Tulane University
- National Institutes of Health
- School of Medicine, Duke University
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K08HL091108)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Diet and metabolism studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Dietary Effects on Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Keywords
- low-carbohydrate diet, low-fat diet, metabolic risk factors, weight loss, obesity, cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, waist circumference, dietary fat restriction
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Age Factors, Blood Glucose, Blood Pressure, Body Weight, Cholesterol, Female, Humans, Insulin, Cholesterol, HDL, Cholesterol, LDL, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, Triglycerides, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Diet, Fat-Restricted, Metabolic Syndrome, Diet, Carbohydrate-Restricted, Waist Circumference, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
