Exposure to the Dutch Famine in Early Gestation and Cognitive Function and Decline in Older Age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People exposed to the 1944–1945 Dutch famine in early gestation performed worse on a selective attention task at age 58 and reported more cognitive problems at age 72. We here hypothesized that undernutrition in early gestation is associated with poorer cognitive functioning in older age and a higher rate of cognitive decline. We tested this hypothesis in the Dutch famine birth cohort in men and women combined and separately. We assessed cognitive function using a Stroop-like, trail-making and 15-word task (at ages 68 and 74) and the Montreal cognitive assessment as well as self-perceived cognitive problems (at age 74) in 73 men (n = 34) and women (n = 39). We compared cognitive function and decline (change in cognitive function between age 68 and 74) between those exposed in early gestation and those not exposed (born before or conceived after the famine). Although in both men and women cognitive function declined from age 68 to 74, cognitive task scores and the rate of decline did not differ between those exposed or unexposed to famine. At age 74, men exposed to famine in early gestation more often reported cognitive problems, although this was not statistically different from unexposed men (OR 3.1 [95%CI 0.7 to 13.0]). We did not find evidence of increased cognitive decline after prenatal undernutrition. Selective participation and mortality may have hampered our ability to detect potential true effects. The self-perceived cognitive problems among men who had been exposed to famine in early gestation might be an indication of future dementia risk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".