MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388725670 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3577972/v1

Microarchitectural structure of bone mediates the relationship between age and cognition

2023· preprint· en· W4388725670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lishan Li, Lihua Ye, Jianzhen Wen, Zhuang Bian, Wenya Han

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSun Yat-sen University
KeywordsCognitionCognitive declineMediationBone mineralEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceMedicinePsychologyGerontologyInternal medicineOsteoporosisDementiaDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There is potential endocrine crosstalk between bone and the brain. To elucidate the relationship between age and cognitive decline, it is important to consider microarchitectural structure of bone such as trabecular bone score (TBS), which is more sensitive technique to measure microarchitectural structure of bone than bone mineral density (BMD) and may affect behavior. Therefore, we aimed to investigate if TBS is a mediator of the relationship between age and cognitive decline. Healthy participants (N = 101, 40–90 years) completed the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Body composition, BMD and TBS were measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry. Mediation analysis was conducted to determine if TBS mediates the relationship between age and cognition. Older age was associated with worse cognition (p < 0.001), but this was an indirect effect: older participants had lower TBS, and, in turn, lower TBS was associated with worse MoCA scores. TBS mediates the relationship between age and cognitive decline. Importantly, this relationship was not moderated by age. Moreover, high muscle mass was associated with increased TBS. This relationship between health and TBS may be a possible mechanistic explanation for how health affects cognition in older age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207