Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment affects 16-25% of older adults in the US and Canada and has profound effects on quality of life. Adherence to a Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet) has been associated with better cognitive function in some studies, but results have been inconsistent. To analyze the relationship between MedDiet adherence and rates of cognitive decline. Data were taken from the ARIC study, which included 10,104 adults age 45-64 from 4 counties in the US. Food frequency questionnaire data was used to assess MedDiet adherence according to the Mediterranean-Style Dietary Pattern Score. Cognitive function was assessed by combining Delayed Word Recall, Digit Symbol Substitution, and Word Fluency tests administered at baseline and six-year follow-up. Linear regression was used to assess the association between MedDiet score and change in cognitive function. The average MedDiet score was 20.0 ± 6.5 with sub-scores for whole grain and wine consumption at 1.2 ± 1.1 and 0.4 ± 1.1, respectively. There was no significant relationship between MedDiet Score and cognitive change in univariate, demographic, or fully adjusted models. ARIC participants had low MedDiet adherence, particularly in whole grain and wine consumption. MedDiet adherence was not significantly associated with cognitive change among ARIC participants.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".