Cognitive impacts of diet quality depend on socioeconomic position: the NuAge study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined whether equivalent adherence to ‘Prudent’ and ‘Western’ dietary patterns, identified by principle components analysis, exerted the same beneficial or detrimental effects on cognitive function (Modified Mini‐Mental State Examination; 3MS) in older adults with different socioeconomic position (SEP). The interaction of dietary pattern adherence with household income, educational attainment, occupational prestige, and a composite indicator of SEP combining all three (n=1099) was examined in multiple‐adjusted mixed models over 3 years of follow‐up. Adherence to the Prudent pattern was related to higher 3MS scores at recruitment only in upper categories of income (P=0.015), education (P=0.017), or composite SEP (P=0.026). High Prudent pattern adherence was associated with slower cognitive decline only in those with low composite SEP (P=0.042). Conversely, high Western pattern adherence was associated with accelerated cognitive decline (P=0.023) only in those with low educational attainment. In summary, we found that the neuropsychological parameters of the diet‐cognition relationship were dependent on SEP. Since individuals with equivalent diet quality and dissimilar SEP performed differently, it may be unrealistic to expect diet to act on cognition in isolation from other dimensions of lifestyle. Grant Funding Source : Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".