MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900252866 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igy023.953

BODY MASS INDEX AND COGNITIVE DECLINE AMONG KOREAN OLDER ADULTS: AN 8-YEAR FOLLOW-UP STUDY

2018· article· en· W2900252866 on OpenAlexaff
G Kim, Sunha Choi, Jiqiang Lyu

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderweightBody mass indexCognitive declineCognitionOverweightLongitudinal studyGerontologyDemographyPsychologyMedicineEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceLatent growth modelingDementiaDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: This study examined the longitudinal trajectory of the relation between body mass index (BMI) and cognitive decline among Korean older adults. Methods: Participants were a nationally representative sample of 5,549 Korean adults aged 60 or older from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging (KLOSA: 2006–2014). Our outcome variable was cognitive functioning measued with the Korean Mini-Mental State Examination (K-MMSE). Growth curve modeling analysis was conducted to examine the longitudinal association between BMI and cognitive functioning. Results: Results from growth curve modeling analysis showed that after adjusting for covariates, underweight increased a risk for cognitive decline among Korean older adults over the 8-year period (p < .05). On the contrary, overweight or obese older adults had a reduced risk for cognitive decline over the 8-year period, after adjusting for covariates (ps < .001). A growth curve figure displayed a negative linear pattern of the relation between BMI and cognitive decline, indicating that the declining pattern of cognitive functioning scores reduced as BMI increased over the 8-year period. Discussion: Findings suggest that compared to healthy weight, low BMI could be a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction, whereas high BMI could function as a protective factor for cognitive dysfunction in late adulthood. Additional research examining reasons for this longitudinal trajectory is needed. Implications for research and clinical practice are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207