Effects of a Raisin Supplement on Cognitive Performance, Quality of Life, and Functional Activities in Healthy Older Adults. Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of consuming 50 g of raisins on cognitive performance, quality of life, and functional activities in healthy older adults. This is a parallel randomized controlled clinical trial, in which 80 subjects over 70 years of age participated. For 6 months, the intervention group (IG; n = 40) consumed 50 g of raisins per day added to their usual diet, whereas the control group (CG; n = 40) received no supplement. All variables were measured at baseline and at 6 months. Cognitive performance assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) test shows a difference of 3.27 points (95% CI 1.59 to 4.96), p ≤ 0.001, favorable to the IG, after the intervention. Among the cognitive performances, an improvement is observed in the IG in orientation, assessed both with the MOCA test 0.49 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.87), p = 0.014, and with the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) test, 0.36 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.70), p = 0.038. In visuospatial/executive capacity and in language, improvements were also observed in the IG, 1.36 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.95), p = 0.001, and 0.54 points (95% CI 0.12 to 0.96), p = 0.014, respectively. Immediate and delayed recall, assessed with the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, improved in the IG. In addition, the IG showed a better quality of life and greater autonomy in instrumental activities of daily living after 6 months. No significant changes were observed in the rest of the variables analyzed. Therefore, the consumption of 50 g of raisins produces a slight improvement in cognitive performance, quality of life, and functional activities in the elderly.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".