Green tea improves cognitive function through reducing AD-pathology and improving anti-oxidative stress capacity in Chinese middle-aged and elderly people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Numerous benefits of green tea have been reported. However, the effects of green tea on cognitive function remain disputable and the mechanism is still unclear. Objective: To investigate the relationship of green tea consumption with cognitive function and related blood biomarkers among Chinese middle-aged and elderly people. Methods: A total of 264 participants aged 50–70 years old were enrolled from Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University. They were interviewed about green tea consumption patterns and underwent neuropsychological tests covering five main cognitive domains to assess cognition including Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and the other 10 scales. Then we detected serum oxidative stress biomarkers including Superoxide Dismutase (SOD), Malondialdehyde (MDA), Glutathione Peroxidase (GPx), Glutathione Reductase (GR), and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) markers including β-amyloid (Aβ)40, Aβ42, and phosphorylated tau-181 (pTau181). Results: In the tea-consuming group, the MoCA scores (P = 0.000), Hopkins Verbal Learning Test (HVLT) immediate recall (P = 0.012) and delayed recall (P = 0.013) were significantly higher while Trail Making Test-B (P = 0.005) and Victoria Stroop test interference (P = 0.000) were lower. In terms of oxidative stress markers, the tea-consuming group had lower serum MDA levels (P = 0.002) and higher serum SOD (P = 0.005) and GPx (P = 0.007) levels. In terms of AD markers, serum pTau181 (P < 0.000), Aβ42 (P = 0.019) and total Aβ levels (P = 0.034) but not serum Aβ40 levels, were lower in the tea-consuming group. In the logistic regression analysis, there was a significant negative correlation between green tea consumption and cognitive impairment (OR = 0.26, 95 % CI 0.13 0.52 for high group). Conclusion: Regular green tea consumption is associated with better cognitive function among Chinese middle-aged and elderly people, mainly reflected in memory and executive function. It may achieve protective effects by reducing AD-related pathology and improving anti-oxidative stress capacity and higher levels of tea consumption have a stronger protective effect.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".