Low blood carotenoid status in dementia and mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given their potent antioxidation properties, carotenoids play a role in delaying and preventing dementia and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). However, observational studies have found inconsistent results regarding the associations between blood carotenoid levels and the risk of dementia and MCI. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the relationship between blood carotenoid levels and the risk of dementia and MCI. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library electronic databases to retrieve relevant English articles published from their inception until February 23, 2023. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effect meta-analyses. Ultimately, 23 studies (n = 6610) involving 1422 patients with dementia, 435 patients with MCI, and 4753 controls were included. RESULTS: Our meta-analysis showed that patients with dementia had lower blood lycopene (SMD: -0.521; 95%CI: -0.741, -0.301), α-carotene (SMD: -0.489; 95%CI: -0.697, -0.281), β-carotene (SMD: -0.476; 95%CI: -0.784, -0.168), lutein (SMD: -0.516; 95%CI: -0.753, -0.279), zeaxanthin (SMD: -0.571; 95%CI: -0.910, -0.232) and β-cryptoxanthin (SMD: -0.617; 95%CI: -0.953, -0.281) than the controls. Our results indicated that blood carotenoid levels were significantly lower in patients with dementia than in controls, despite high heterogeneity across the studies. Owing to insufficient data, we did not observe a similar and stable relationship between blood carotenoid levels and MCI. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicated that lower blood carotenoid levels may be a risk factor for dementia and MCI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".