MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921029513 · doi:10.1111/jgs.15836

Metabolic Syndrome and Cognitive Impairment among High Socioeconomic, Nondemented Older US Adults

2019· article· en· W2921029513 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Erline Martinez-Miller, Harold W. Kohl, Carolyn E. Barlow, Benjamin L. Willis, Laura F. DeFina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGerontologyCardiorespiratory fitnessMontreal Cognitive AssessmentBody mass indexConfidence intervalMarital statusMetabolic syndromeNational Cholesterol Education ProgramSocioeconomic statusDementiaRisk factorCross-sectional studyDemographyInternal medicinePopulationDiseaseObesityEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Nondemented cognitive impairment (CI) presents opportunities for early interventions among individuals at risk for dementia. Identification of modifiable determinants is paramount to the development of effective clinical interventions. Metabolic syndrome (MetS) was theorized as a risk factor, but current research yields inconsistent findings. Few studies have examined the association between MetS and CI among US populations, and global results may be ungeneralizable. We investigated the MetS-CI association among high socioeconomic, nondemented older US adults, examining the roles of sociodemographic, clinical, behavioral, and genetic factors. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Cooper Clinic of Dallas, Texas: Cooper Center Longitudinal Study (2009-2017). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 5200 dementia-free older adult Cooper Clinic patients. MEASUREMENTS: CI was detected with a Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score lower than 26. MetS was established based on National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel guidelines. Unadjusted and multivariable log-binomial regression were used to assess the MetS-CI association, with modification assessment by age, sex, education, cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), and apolipoprotein-ε4 carrier status (APOE-ε4). RESULTS: MetS was not associated with CI when adjusting for age, sex, minority status, education, and marital status (prevalence ratio [PR] = 1.09; 95% confidence interval = .97-1.23) or when additionally adjusting for body mass index, CRF, alcohol consumption, current smoking status, and APOE-ε4 (PR = 1.07; 95% confidence interval = .80-1.45). The association was not modified by age, sex, CRF, or APOE-ε4 (P for interaction >.05). CONCLUSION: In contrast with some global and US studies, MetS and CI were not associated among our study population of nondemented older US adults. MetS may not be a suitable intervention target for poor cognitive outcomes among high socioeconomic older US adults, although separate MetS components may have different recommendations. Future studies should explore more diverse older US populations. If replicated, these findings would inform clinical efforts to reduce the burden of poor cognitive outcomes in the United States.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Geriatrics SocietySame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207