Correlation between Body Mass Index (BMI) and Performance on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) in a Cohort of Adult Women in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. Recent evidence suggests that obesity is increasing worldwide and may negatively impact neurocognition. Local studies on the association of weight status with neurocognitive function are sparse. This study is aimed at examining the association between body mass index (BMI) and neurocognitive functioning scores in a cohort of adult women. Methods. A convenience sample of 175 women aged 18 to 59 years ( 28.03 ± 8.87 ) recruited in a community-based quantitative study completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The BMI metric was used to measure body fat based on weight and height and was stratified as high BMI (overweight or obese) or low BMI (normal weight). The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was used to assess depression. Pearson’s correlation analysis and the student’s t -test analysis were performed. Results. We observed a significant inverse association between BMI and performance on MoCA ( r 173 = − 0.32 , p < 0.001 ). Performance on subtest of attention, memory, constructive abstraction, and executive functions significantly and inversely correlated with BMI. Significantly lower scores on the MoCA were found in women with a high BMI compared to women with a low BMI ( 23 ± 4 vs. 26 ± 3 ), t 173 = 4.12 , p < 0.0001 ). Conclusions. BMI and MoCA were inversely associated on both global and domain-specific neurocognitive test of attention, memory, and executive function; key neurocognitive control; and regulatory functions underlying behavior and decision-making. The findings provide a rationale for further research into the long-term effects of BMI on neurocognition.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".