ArticleJournal of nutrition and metabolism2025
The Association Between Dietary Intake of Aromatic Amino Acids and Metabolic Syndrome.
Article in Journal of nutrition and metabolism, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study aimed to explore the association between dietary sources of aromatic amino acids (AAAs) from both animal and plant sources and the risk of developing metabolic syndrome (MetS). Objective: The primary goal of this research was to examine how the intake of AAAs correlates with the incidence of MetS. Methods: The current prospective observational study was conducted on collected data from 4920 adult individuals aged between 19 and 74 years, participants from Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study. Dietary data and usual intake of AAAs such as phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan were calculated using a validated semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire. Result: In this study, median intakes of AAAs were 5.9 g/d (IQR: 4.7-7.4 g/d), which corresponded to 2.8 g/d (2.2-3.4 g/d) of animal sources and 2.5 g/d (1.8-3.2 g/d) of plant sources. An increased intake of total AAAs (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.05, 1.57) and AAAs from animal sources (HR: 1.30 and 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65) was positively linked to a higher risk of MetS, even after controlling for confounding variables. In different strata of BMI, the risk of MetS was positively associated with MetS only in obese subjects in the highest tertile of total AAAs intake (HR: 1.36 and 95% CI: 1.02-1.87) and for AAAs from animal sources (HR: 1.16 and 95% CI: 1.09-2.12). Nevertheless, none of the three BMI groups showed a statistically significant association between incident MetS and AAAs from plant sources. Also, no significant interactions were found between sex and AAAs intake and its constituents on MetS risk. Conclusion: The intake of AAAs, particularly from animal sources, was positively associated with the risk of MetS, especially in obese individuals. However, more studies are needed in this area.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.