Sex differences in the relationship between dietary pattern adherence and cognitive function among older adults: Findings from the NuAge study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Consumption of a prudent dietary pattern rich in healthy nutrients is associated with enhanced cognitive performance in older adulthood, while a Western dietary pattern low in healthy nutrients is associated with poor age-related cognitive function. Sex differences exist in dietary intake among older adults; however, there is a paucity of research examining the relationship between sex-specific dietary patterns and cognitive function in later life. Methods The current study aimed to investigate sex differences in the relationship between sex-specific dietary pattern adherence and global cognitive function at baseline and over a 3-year follow-up in 1268 community-dwelling older adults ( M age =74 years, 52% women) from the Quebec Longitudinal Study on Nutrition and Successful Aging (NuAge). A Food Frequency Questionnaire was used to estimate dietary intake. Sex-specific dietary pattern scores were derived using principal component analysis. Global cognition was assessed using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination (3MS). Results Adjusted linear mixed effects models indicated that a healthy, prudent dietary pattern was not associated with baseline cognitive performance in men or women. No relationship was found between Western dietary pattern adherence and baseline cognitive function in women. Among men, adherence to an unhealthy, Western dietary pattern was associated with poorer baseline cognitive function ( β = -0.652, p = 0.02). No association was found between prudent or Western dietary patterns and cognitive change over time in men or women. Conclusions These findings highlight the importance of conducting sex-based analyses in aging research and suggest that the relationship between dietary pattern adherence and cognitive function in late life may be sex-dependent.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".