MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163808946 · doi:10.3390/ijms22095026

In Pursuit of Healthy Aging: Effects of Nutrition on Brain Function

2021· review· en· W3163808946 on OpenAlexaff
Thayza Martins Melzer, Luana M. Manosso, Suk‐Yu Yau, Joana Gil‐Mohapel, Patrícia S. Brocardo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Molecular Sciences · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronutrientBrain agingCognitive declineCognitionBrain functionSuccessful agingBrain Structure and FunctionPsychological interventionGut floraEnvironmental healthGerontologyHealthy agingGut–brain axisAging brainFish <Actinopterygii>MedicineBiologyDementiaNeuroscienceDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consuming a balanced, nutritious diet is important for maintaining health, especially as individuals age. Several studies suggest that consuming a diet rich in antioxidants and anti-inflammatory components such as those found in fruits, nuts, vegetables, and fish may reduce age-related cognitive decline and the risk of developing various neurodegenerative diseases. Numerous studies have been published over the last decade focusing on nutrition and how this impacts health. The main objective of the current article is to review the data linking the role of diet and nutrition with aging and age-related cognitive decline. Specifically, we discuss the roles of micronutrients and macronutrients and provide an overview of how the gut microbiota-gut-brain axis and nutrition impact brain function in general and cognitive processes in particular during aging. We propose that dietary interventions designed to optimize the levels of macro and micronutrients and maximize the functioning of the microbiota-gut-brain axis can be of therapeutic value for improving cognitive functioning, particularly during aging.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations84
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Molecular SciencesSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207