B Vitamins in the Prevention of Cognitive Decline and Vascular Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the number of elderly continues to increase worldwide, age-related neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s disease and vascular dementia, are a growing concern. In some cases, vascular dementia and cognitive decline in aging are associated with nutritional status and elevated homocysteine, suggesting that improving nutritional status can play a meaningful role in the prevention of cognitive impairment. The research described in this chapter represents current understanding on the relationships of folate and vitamin B12 nutritional status with cognitive function and dementia in adults and elderly. Low B vitamin status is associated with increased homocysteine levels and there is evidence that insufficient B vitamin intake is associated with lower cognitive scores in comparison to adequate intake. However, higher rates of cognitive decline have been reported with high levels of folate and folic acid intake in adults, and memory performance may be impaired with high folate intake in individuals with low vitamin B12 status. Overall, studies reported lower folate blood levels and a higher prevalence of deficiency among subjects with dementia. In general, vitamin B12 serum levels were lower in patients with dementia relative to nondemented individuals; however, this relationship was not as consistent as that for folate. Subsequent to mandatory folic acid fortification, stroke mortality has decreased at a greater rate in the United States and Canada, suggesting a positive effect of fortification on cerebrovascular health. Interventions with folic acid and with combinations of B vitamins were able to improve cognitive function or prevent decline, especially in subjects with low nutrient status. As with the data for blood nutrient levels, evidence that vitamin B12 treatment improves cognitive function is conflicting and less positive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".