Adiposity Estimated Using Dual Energy X‐Ray Absorptiometry and Body Mass Index and Its Association with Cognition in Elderly Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether obesity, estimated according to body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, and body fat and abdominal fat assessed using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA), was associated with cognitive performance. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Community based. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 74-94 (N = 406). MEASUREMENTS: BMI, waist circumference, body fat, and abdominal fat were assessed using DEXA. Cognitive performance was assessed using a comprehensive neuropsychological battery. RESULTS: When categorized using BMI, overweight individuals had higher global cognitive function and executive function scores than normal-weight individuals. This relationship did not differ according to sex. When categorized according to DEXA, there were no relationships between body fat and cognitive function in the whole group, but women in the middle and highest tertiles of DEXA body fat had better executive function than those in the lowest tertile. Men in the middle tertile of DEXA body fat had significantly better executive function and memory than those in the lowest tertile. BMI had greater power to predict executive function than DEXA body fat. No significant associations were found between cognition and estimates of abdominal adiposity. CONCLUSION: This study found an association between being overweight and better executive function in elderly adults; this association was stronger for the simpler BMI than the more-elaborate DEXA measures.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".