Nutrition state of science and dementia prevention: recommendations of the Nutrition for Dementia Prevention Working Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observational studies suggest that nutritional factors have a potential cognitive benefit. However, systematic reviews of randomised trials of dietary and nutritional supplements have reported largely null effects on cognitive outcomes and have highlighted study inconsistencies and other limitations. In this Personal View, the Nutrition for Dementia Prevention Working Group presents what we consider to be limitations in the existing nutrition clinical trials for dementia prevention. On the basis of this evidence, we propose recommendations for incorporating dietary patterns and the use of genetic, and nutrition assessment tools, biomarkers, and novel clinical trial designs to guide future trial developments. Nutrition-based research has unique challenges that could require testing both more personalised interventions in targeted risk subgroups, identified by nutritional and other biomarkers, and large-scale and pragmatic study designs for more generalisable public health interventions across diverse populations.
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 | 0.083 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
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".