Nutrient Patterns, Cognitive Function, and Decline in Older Persons: Results from the Three-City and NuAge Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dietary patterns, or the combination of foods and beverages intake, have been associated with better cognitive function in older persons. To date, no study has investigated the link between a posteriori nutrient patterns based on food intake, and cognitive decline in longitudinal analyses. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between nutrient patterns and cognitive function and decline in two longitudinal cohorts of older persons from France and Canada. The study sample was composed of participants from the Three-City study (3C, France) and the Quebec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge, Quebec, Canada). Both studies estimated nutritional intakes at baseline, and carried out repeated measures of global cognitive function for 1,388 and 1,439 individuals, respectively. Nutrient patterns were determined using principal component analysis methodology in the two samples, and their relation with cognitive function and decline was estimated using linear mixed models. In 3C, a healthy nutrient pattern, characterized by higher intakes of plant-based foods, was associated with a higher global cognitive function at baseline, as opposed to a Western nutrient pattern, which was associated with lower cognitive performance. In NuAge, we also found a healthy nutrient pattern and a Western pattern, although no association was observed with either of these patterns in the Canadian cohort. No association between any of the nutrient patterns and cognitive decline was observed in either cohort. There is a need for longitudinal cohorts focusing on nutrient patterns with substantial follow-up, in order to evaluate more accurately associations between nutrition and cognition in older persons.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".