Association of body mass index with amnestic and non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment risk in elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies focused on the relationship between body mass index and cognitive disorder and obtained many conflicting results. This study explored the potential effects of body mass index on the risk of mild cognitive impairment (amnestic and non-amnestic) in the elderly. METHODS: The study enrolled 240 amnestic mild cognitive impairment patients, 240 non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment patients and 480 normal cognitive function controls. Data on admission and retrospective data at baseline (6 years ago) were collected from their medical records. Cognitive function was evaluated using Mini-Mental State Examination and Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Being underweight, overweight or obese at baseline was associated with an increased risk of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (OR: 2.30, 95%CI: 1.50 ~ 3.52; OR: 1.74, 95%CI: 1.36 ~ 2.20; OR: 1.71, 95%CI: 1.32 ~ 2.22, respectively). Being overweight or obese at baseline was also associated with an increased risk of non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment (OR: 1.51, 95%CI: 1.20 ~ 1.92; OR: 1.52, 95%CI: 1.21 ~ 1.97, respectively). In subjects with normal weights at baseline, an increased or decreased body mass index at follow-up was associated with an elevated risk of amnestic mild cognitive impairment (OR: 1.80, 95%CI: 1.10 ~ 3.05; OR: 3.96, 95%CI: 2.88 ~ 5.49, respectively), but only an increased body mass index was associated with an elevated risk of non-amnestic mild cognitive impairment (OR: 1.71, 95%CI: 1.16 ~ 2.59). CONCLUSIONS: Unhealthy body mass index levels at baseline and follow-up might impact the risk of both types of mild cognitive impairment (amnestic and non-amnestic).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".