Neuroprotective Diets Are Associated with Better Cognitive Function: The Health and Retirement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate the association between the Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) and the Mediterranean‐ DASH diet Intervention for Neurodegeneration Delay ( MIND diet) and cognition in a nationally representative population of older U.S. adults. Design Population‐based cross‐sectional study. Setting Health and Retirement Study. Participants Community‐dwelling older adults (N = 5,907; mean age 67.8 ± 10.8). Measurements Adherence to dietary patterns was determined from food frequency questionnaires using criteria determined a priori to generate diet scores for the MedDiet (range 0–55) and MIND diet (range 0–15). Cognitive performance was measured using a composite test score of global cognitive function (range 0–27). Linear regression was used to compare cognitive performance according to tertiles of dietary pattern. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between dietary patterns and clinically significant cognitive impairment. Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, educational attainment, and other health and lifestyle covariates. Results Participants with mid (odds ratio ( OR ) = 0.85, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) = 0.71–1.02, P = .08) and high ( OR 0.65, 95% CI = 0.52–0.81, P < .001) MedDiet scores were less likely to have poor cognitive performance than those with low scores in fully adjusted models. Results for the MIND diet were similar. Higher scores in each dietary pattern were independently associated with significantly better cognitive function ( P < .001) in a dose‐response manner ( P trend < .001). Conclusion In a large nationally representative population of older adults, greater adherence to the MedDiet and MIND diet was independently associated with better cognitive function and lower risk of cognitive impairment. Clinical trials are required to elucidate the role of dietary patterns in cognitive aging.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".