Plasma Long Chain Fatty Acids and Cognitive Function in Older Adults: A Comparison of Statistical Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Omega-3 fatty acids (FAs) have been suggested as modifiable protective factors for cognitive decline because of their neuroprotective properties. However, the evidence is still inconsistent regarding types of omega-3 FAs, and the probable interrelation with other circulating long chain FAs (LCFAs). This study aimed to evaluate associations between 14 plasma LCFAs and four cognitive domains using a principal component analysis (PCA) and to compare results with those obtained using standard methods. A group of 386 healthy older adults aged 77 ± 4 years (53% women), selected from the NutCog Study, a sub-study from the Québec cohort on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge), underwent a cognitive evaluation and fasting blood sampling. Verbal and non-verbal episodic memory, executive functioning, and processing speed were evaluated using validated tests. LCFAs circulating concentrations were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography using published procedures. Linear regressions adjusted for age, sex, education, and BMI were used to evaluate cross-sectional associations between LCFAs, using PCA or a more standard grouping (omega-3, omega-6, monounsaturated, and saturated LCFAs), and cognitive performance. Higher scoring on the omega-3 PCA factor and higher concentrations of total omega-3 FAs were both associated with better episodic non-verbal memory and processing speed. Higher eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA omega-3) was also associated with these two cognitive domains and with episodic verbal memory. The associations with total omega-3 FAs taken separately were of smaller magnitude than those with PCA. These results suggest that omega-3 FAs should be considered in combination with other LCFAs when evaluating the association with cognitive function.
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 | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".