Association between the mediterranean diet and cognitive health among healthy adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An increasing prevalence of cognitive disorders warrants comprehensive systematic reviews on the effect of diet on cognitive health. Studies have suggested that the Mediterranean (MeDi) diet has protective effects against metabolic diseases. However, comprehensive systematic reviews on the effect of the MeDi diet on the cognitive decline are limited. We investigated whether adherence to the MeDi diet could lower the risk of the cognitive disorder or improve cognitive function in older adults. Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to June 2021. Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The effect sizes were estimated as log risk ratios and standard mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Newcastle-Ottawa score and Cochrane Collaboration's tool were used to assess the risk of bias in cohort studies and RCTs, respectively. Results: Of the 1,687 screened studies, 31 cohort studies and five RCTs met the eligibility criteria for qualitative analysis; 26 cohort studies and two RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. In the cohort studies, high adherence to the MeDi diet was associated with lower risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) [risk ratio (RR) = 0.75 (0.66-0.86)], and Alzheimer's disease (AD) [RR = 0.71 (0.56-0.89)]. In the RCTs, high adherence to the MeDi diet was associated with better episodic [SMD = 0.20 (0.09-0.30)] and working memories [SMD = 0.17 (0.01-0.32)] than lowest group. Conclusion: Adherence to the MeDi diet may reduce the risk of MCI and AD. However, other associations with cognitive outcomes (global cognition, working memory, and episodic memory) remain open to interpretation. Overall, the MeDi diet is recommended to prevent or delay cognitive disorders and improve cognitive function. Further, long-term RCTs are warranted to strengthen the evidence. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk], identifier [CRD42021276801].
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".