MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139300825 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afab028.02

2 Adiposity and Development of Dementia: A Systematic Review of Recently Published Longitudinal Studies

2021· review· en· W3139300825 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yawen Xiang

Bibliographic record

VenueAge and Ageing · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaPsycINFOChecklistMEDLINECohort studyGerontologySystematic reviewCohortBody mass indexInternal medicineDiseasePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background and Objectives The socioeconomic burden of dementia is very high and on the rise. Currently there is no cure for dementia; therefore, it is key to identify the modifiable risk factors for this condition. The association between adiposity and dementia is not yet convincingly established. This systematic review aimed to critically appraise the quality and to synthesise the findings of recently published longitudinal studies examining the association between adiposity and the development of dementia. Methods A comprehensive literature search on longitudinal studies published between 2013 and 2018 was conducted across MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and SCOPUS. The quality of selected papers was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for cohort studies (NOS) and PRISMA-IPD checklist. The results of the included studies were qualitatively synthesised. Results Of the 1,370 citations identified and reviewed, 10 completely met the inclusion criteria. Of the 10 included studies, 9 were high quality cohort studies, scoring an average of 8.4 out of 9 for NOS. One study was an individual patient data meta-analysis study (IPD). The IPD had high scientific rigour and largely adhered to the PRISMA-IPD checklist. In total, the 9 cohort studies included more than 2 million subjects, with 3 cohorts recruiting exclusively men. The IPD contained data from 39 cohorts and 1.3 million participants. 4 studies were conducted in highly selective cohorts. Apart from European male populations, the other populations were markedly under-represented. All studies used body mass index (BMI) as a proxy for adiposity. None of the included studies did a sample size calculation. Only half of the included studies were able to produce significant results, suggesting insufficient sample size and lack of power. The included studies reached contradictory results, with half of the studies favouring a protective effect of adiposity. Conclusions In view of the results and quality of the studies, this review found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the association between adiposity and dementia. Current evidence suggests an association between mid-life obesity and dementia development in late-life. Longer studies were more likely to conclude that adiposity was detrimental to health. The inconsistent conclusions could be the result of reverse causality. To conclusively establish the link between adiposity and dementia, more research with robust methodology is warranted.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAge and AgeingSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207