Ultra-Processed Food Intake and Risk of Adverse Liver Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

IF 3.4 2区 农林科学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Chang Guo, Wu-cai Yang, Jie Zhou, Jian-Jun Wang, Dong Ji
{"title":"Ultra-Processed Food Intake and Risk of Adverse Liver Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis","authors":"Chang Guo,&nbsp;Wu-cai Yang,&nbsp;Jie Zhou,&nbsp;Jian-Jun Wang,&nbsp;Dong Ji","doi":"10.1111/1750-3841.70303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the association between ultra-processed food (UPF) intake and adverse liver outcomes, addressing a critical evidence gap as prior observational studies lacked pooled quantitative synthesis. Researchers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science (up to October 17, 2024) using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. Statistical analyses in Stata 14.0 employed fixed-effects (<i>P</i> &gt; 0.1, <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> ≤ 50%) or random-effects models (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> &gt; 50%), with publication bias assessed via funnel plots and Egger's test. The analysis included 17 studies (11 cohort, 3 case-control, 3 cross-sectional; <i>n</i> = 1,092,950 participants). UPF consumption significantly increased risks of adverse liver outcomes (OR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.34–1.86; <i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 89.9%), specifically non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (OR = 1.72; 95%CI: 1.36–2.17), liver fibrosis (OR = 1.31; 95%CI: 1.08–1.59), and liver cancer (OR = 1.35; 95%CI: 1.03–1.76). Subgroup analyses revealed regional variations, with Asian cohorts showing lower NAFLD risk (OR = 1.47 vs. American/European studies). High heterogeneity (<i>I</i><sup>2</sup> = 89.9%) persisted across analyses. Findings confirm UPFs as independent risk factors for liver diseases, mediated through metabolic pathways like fat accumulation and inflammation. This synthesis strengthens evidence for dietary guidelines limiting UPFs to mitigate global liver disease burdens. The study's robust methodology and large sample size underscore the clinical and public health implications of reducing UPF consumption.</p>","PeriodicalId":193,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Science","volume":"90 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1750-3841.70303","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.70303","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the association between ultra-processed food (UPF) intake and adverse liver outcomes, addressing a critical evidence gap as prior observational studies lacked pooled quantitative synthesis. Researchers conducted a comprehensive search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science (up to October 17, 2024) using Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords. Statistical analyses in Stata 14.0 employed fixed-effects (P > 0.1, I2 ≤ 50%) or random-effects models (I2 > 50%), with publication bias assessed via funnel plots and Egger's test. The analysis included 17 studies (11 cohort, 3 case-control, 3 cross-sectional; n = 1,092,950 participants). UPF consumption significantly increased risks of adverse liver outcomes (OR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.34–1.86; I2 = 89.9%), specifically non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (OR = 1.72; 95%CI: 1.36–2.17), liver fibrosis (OR = 1.31; 95%CI: 1.08–1.59), and liver cancer (OR = 1.35; 95%CI: 1.03–1.76). Subgroup analyses revealed regional variations, with Asian cohorts showing lower NAFLD risk (OR = 1.47 vs. American/European studies). High heterogeneity (I2 = 89.9%) persisted across analyses. Findings confirm UPFs as independent risk factors for liver diseases, mediated through metabolic pathways like fat accumulation and inflammation. This synthesis strengthens evidence for dietary guidelines limiting UPFs to mitigate global liver disease burdens. The study's robust methodology and large sample size underscore the clinical and public health implications of reducing UPF consumption.

Abstract Image

超加工食品摄入与不良肝脏结局风险:一项荟萃分析
本荟萃分析系统地评估了超加工食品(UPF)摄入与不良肝脏结局之间的关系,解决了先前观察性研究缺乏汇总定量综合的关键证据缺口。研究人员使用医学主题词(MeSH)术语和关键词在PubMed、Cochrane Library、Embase和Web of Science(截止到2024年10月17日)中进行了全面的搜索。Stata 14.0中的统计分析采用固定效应(P >;0.1, I2≤50%)或随机效应模型(I2 >;50%),通过漏斗图和Egger检验评估发表偏倚。分析纳入17项研究(11项队列研究,3项病例对照研究,3项横断面研究;N = 1,092,950名参与者)。UPF消费显著增加肝脏不良结局的风险(OR = 1.58;95% ci: 1.34-1.86;I2 = 89.9%),特别是非酒精性脂肪性肝病(NAFLD) (OR = 1.72;95%CI: 1.36-2.17),肝纤维化(OR = 1.31;95%CI: 1.08-1.59)和肝癌(OR = 1.35;95%置信区间:1.03—-1.76)。亚组分析揭示了区域差异,亚洲队列显示NAFLD风险较低(OR = 1.47与美国/欧洲研究相比)。高异质性(I2 = 89.9%)在分析中持续存在。研究结果证实,upf是肝脏疾病的独立危险因素,通过脂肪积累和炎症等代谢途径介导。这一综合结果加强了膳食指南限制upf以减轻全球肝病负担的证据。该研究的可靠方法和大样本量强调了减少UPF消费的临床和公共卫生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Food Science
Journal of Food Science 工程技术-食品科技
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
412
审稿时长
3.1 months
期刊介绍: The goal of the Journal of Food Science is to offer scientists, researchers, and other food professionals the opportunity to share knowledge of scientific advancements in the myriad disciplines affecting their work, through a respected peer-reviewed publication. The Journal of Food Science serves as an international forum for vital research and developments in food science. The range of topics covered in the journal include: -Concise Reviews and Hypotheses in Food Science -New Horizons in Food Research -Integrated Food Science -Food Chemistry -Food Engineering, Materials Science, and Nanotechnology -Food Microbiology and Safety -Sensory and Consumer Sciences -Health, Nutrition, and Food -Toxicology and Chemical Food Safety The Journal of Food Science publishes peer-reviewed articles that cover all aspects of food science, including safety and nutrition. Reviews should be 15 to 50 typewritten pages (including tables, figures, and references), should provide in-depth coverage of a narrowly defined topic, and should embody careful evaluation (weaknesses, strengths, explanation of discrepancies in results among similar studies) of all pertinent studies, so that insightful interpretations and conclusions can be presented. Hypothesis papers are especially appropriate in pioneering areas of research or important areas that are afflicted by scientific controversy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信