Associations Between Abdominal Obesity, Chewing Difficulty and Cognitive Impairment in Dementia-Free Chinese Elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the independent and synergistic associations between abdominal obesity, chewing difficulty and cognitive impairment in a community-dwelling older adults sample in China. METHODS: Cognitive function was measured by the 5 min- Montreal Cognitive Assessment (5 min-MoCA) and abdominal obesity was measured by A Body Shape Index (ABSI) in 572 participants recruited from local communities. Chewing difficulty was assessed via a self-report questionnaire. Linear regression and general logistic regression were performed to investigate the association of chewing difficulty and abdominal obesity with cognition. RESULTS: Chewing difficulty score [β (95% CI) = -.30 (-.49, -.11)] and ABSI [β (95%CI) = -.30 (-.55, -.05)] were independently associated with worse performance on the 5 min-MoCA. Whilst ABSI was not associated with cognitive impairment, the co-existence of chewing difficulty and abdominal obesity [OR (95% CI) = 2.22 (1.18, 4.17)] was found associated with the presence of cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: Chewing difficulty and abdominal obesity were independently associated with cognition. Abdominal obesity and chewing may have an additive effect on cognitive function.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".