The effect of caloric restriction on working memory in healthy non-obese adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aim to evaluate the effect of caloric restriction (CR) in cognition by comparing performance in neuropsychological tests for working memory between a group of non-obese healthy subjects doing CR for 2 years with another consuming ad libitum diet (AL). METHODS: This study was part of a larger multicenter trial called CALERIE that consisted of a randomized clinical trial with parallel-group comparing 2 years of 25% CR and AL in 220 volunteers with a BMI between 22 and 28 kg/m2, across 3 sites. The cognitive tests used were the Cambridge Neuropsychological Tests Automated Battery (CANTAB) for Spatial Working Memory (SWM) including the total number of errors (SWMTE) and strategy (SWMS). Included as possible moderators were sleep quality, mood states, perceived stress, and energy expenditure. Analyses were performed at baseline and months 12 and 24. RESULTS: After adjustments, there was a significantly greater improvement in working memory assessed by the SWM for CR individuals, compared to AL. At month 24, it was related mostly to lower protein intake, compared to other macronutrients. Changes in SWM were moderated by changes in sleep quality, physical activity, and energy expenditure. CONCLUSION: On the long term, CR in healthy individuals seems to have a slightly positive effect on working memory. The study of brain CR targets opens new possibilities to prevent and treat cognitive deficits.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".