MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010810727 · doi:10.1186/s12937-020-00531-1

Association between adherence to MIND diet and general and abdominal obesity: a cross-sectional study

2020· article· en· W3010810727 on OpenAlex
Azadeh Aminianfar, Ammar Hassanzadeh Keshteli, Ahmad Esmaillzadeh, Peyman Adibi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersIsfahan University of Medical Sciences
KeywordsMedicineClinical nutritionCross-sectional studyAbdominal obesityObesityAssociation (psychology)Body mass indexGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicineMetabolic syndromePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Recently, a new eating pattern called as “Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND)” has been coined. Emerging studies are examining this dietary pattern with chronic conditions. We aimed to investigate the association between the MIND diet score and general and central obesity among adults. Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted in a framework of the Study on the Epidemiology of Psychological Alimentary Health and Nutrition (SEPAHAN). Dietary information was collected using a validated self-administered 106-item Willett-format dish-based semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (DS-FFQ) in 6724 adults. Adherence to the MIND diet was examined based on components suggested in this eating pattern. Anthropometrics data were collected using a validated self-reported questionnaire. General obesity was defined as body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 , and abdominal obesity as waist circumference > 102 cm for men and > 88 cm for women. Results Mean age, BMI and WC in the study population was 36.8 ± 8.08 y, 24.9 ± 3.8 kg/m 2 and 83.7 ± 16.02 cm, respectively. Overall, 9.5% of subjects were generally obese and 24.4 were abdominally obese. Examining the whole study population, we found no significant association between the MIND diet score and odds of general obesity, either before (ORs for comparing T3 vs. T1: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.27; P-trend = 0.74) or after controlling for potential confounders (ORs for T3 vs. T1: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.67, 1.25; P-trend = 0.58). This was also the case for men and women when analyzed separately. We also failed to find any significant association between the MIND diet score and odds of abdominal obesity after controlling for potential confounders in the whole study population (ORs for T3 vs. T1: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.79, 1.27; P-trend = 0.87). However, women with the greatest adherence to the MIND diet were 19% less likely to be abdominally obese than those with the lowest adherence in crude model (OR = 0.81; 95% CIs: 0.67, 0.98; P-trend = 0.03). This association disappeared after controlling for potential confounders (OR = 0.87; 95% CIs: 0.66, 1.14; P-trend = 0.55). Conclusion No significant association was observed between adherence to the MIND diet and odds of general and central obesity.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.448

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.283 · 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