Abstract MP65: Prospective Association Between Adiponectin Levels With Neurocognitive And Neuroimaging Outcomes: Findings From The Dallas Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Adiponectin’s association with neurocognitive outcomes has been inconsistent. Therefore, we sought to characterize the association between adiponectin and subclinical markers of both neurocognitive impairment and neuroimaging phenotypes. Methods: We included 1,199 participants (mean age of 43.4 , 62.6 % non-white, 56.5 % female) from the Dallas Heart Study, a longitudinal, multiethnic cohort study. Adiponectin was measured at exam 1 (2000-2002) and both Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test scores and brain MRI (3T, Philips) were measured at exam 2 (2007-2009) providing measures of total brain volume, hippocampal volume, and white matter hyperintensity volume (WMH). Baseline characteristics were compared across race- and sex-specific quintiles of adiponectin. The association between adiponectin, MoCA, and brain MRI outcomes were evaluated using regression models adjusted for age, race, sex, education, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, fasting glucose, and abdominal fat. Results: Adiponectin levels were higher in women (8.9 μg/mL) than men (6.37 μg/mL ) and in whites (9.15 μg/mL) than non-whites (6.99 μg/mL). Higher levels of adiponectin were associated with more favorable metabolic profiles. Although there was no association between adiponectin and the reported outcomes when analyzed as a continuous variable (per SD), we observed a consistent, non-linear association between adiponectin and MoCA (Table 1) and brain volume (Table 1) and hippocampal volume (Table 1), with the highest MoCA score and brain volume measure in quintile 3 (vs. quintile 1). In contrast, we observed no consistent association between adiponectin and WMH when adiponectin was analyzed as a continuous (per SD) or as an ordinal variable. Conclusion: We observed a non-linear association between adiponectin and both MoCA scores and brain volumes in a cohort of middle-aged adults. Further research is needed to understand how intermediate values of adiponectin might promote more favorable neurocognitive outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".