Dietary Lutein and Cognitive Function in Adults: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging literature suggests that dietary lutein may have important functions in cognitive health, but there is not enough data to substantiate its effects in human cognition. The current study was intended to determine the overall effect of lutein on the main domains of cognition in the adult population based on available placebo randomized-controlled trials. Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, AGRICOLA, Scopus, MEDLINE, and EMBASE on 14 November 2020. The effect of lutein on complex attention, executive function and memory domains of cognition were assessed by using an inverse-variance meta-analysis of standardized mean differences (SMD) (Hedge’s g method). Dietary lutein was associated with slight improvements in cognitive performance in complex attention (SMD 0.02, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.31), executive function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.51) and memory (SMD 0.03, 95% CI −0.26 to 0.32), but its effect was not significant. Change-from-baseline analysis revealed that lutein consumption could have a role in maintaining cognitive performance in memory and executive function. Although dietary lutein did not significantly improve cognitive performance, the evidence across multiple studies suggests that lutein may nonetheless prevent cognitive decline, especially executive function. More intervention studies are needed to validate the role of lutein in preventing cognitive decline and in promoting brain health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.045 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".