MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388930232 · doi:10.2196/47196

Nutritional Interventions for the Prevention of Cognitive Decline in Patients With Mild Cognitive Impairment and Alzheimer Disease: Protocol for a Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2023· article· en· W4388930232 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qian He, Kevin Chun Hei Wu, Adam N. Bennett, Jia Yue Zhang, Kei Hang Katie Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive declinePsychological interventionMedicineDiseaseCognitionGerontologyAlzheimer's diseaseCognitive impairmentDementiaRandomized controlled trialPsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the stage between cognitive decline due to physiological aging and the severity of decline seen in neurodegenerative disorders like Alzheimer disease (AD), which is among the most prevalent neurodegenerative disorders characterized by cognitive impairment. People with MCI are at increased risk of developing AD. Although MCI and AD are incurable, nutritional interventions can potentially delay or prevent their onset. Consequently, effective interventions used to decelerate or alleviate the progress of cognitive impairment in older people are a significant focus in geriatric care. Given the synergistic effects of nutrition on health, assessing the effectiveness of nutritional supplements or dietary composition in preventing MCI or AD is essential for developing interventional strategies. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to assess the effectiveness of various nutritional interventions, including special dietary types, dietary patterns, specific foods, nutritional intake, and nutritional supplements, in preventing cognitive decline among patients diagnosed with MCI or AD. To achieve this, we will use a comprehensive approach, including network meta-analysis, pairwise meta-analysis, and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The review will follow the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) model and the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines. Two investigators will independently search PubMed electronically. Data extraction will follow the inclusion criteria, and data will be assessed for risk of bias using a revised tool. Additionally, evidence quality will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The outcomes of interest are assessing the cognitive outcomes in patients with MCI or AD. A systematic literature search will be conducted, identifying randomized controlled trials that investigate the impact of these nutritional interventions on cognitive function decline in individuals with MCI and AD. Network meta-analyses (random-effects model) and pairwise meta-analyses will then estimate the relative effectiveness of different nutritional interventions. RESULTS: We included 51 studies, published between 1999 and 2023 (27 studies for AD and 24 studies for MCI) and involving 8420 participants. We completed data extraction for all 51 studies by December 2023. Currently, we are actively engaged in data analysis and manuscript preparation. We plan to finalize the manuscript and publish the comprehensive results by the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: Our study holds significant clinical relevance given the rising prevalence of AD and the potential influence of nutritional interventions on cognitive function in individuals with MCI and AD. By investigating this relationship, our research aims to inform evidence-based decision-making in the development of prevention strategies for MCI and AD. The outcomes are expected to contribute to the establishment of reliable recommendations for MCI or AD management, providing substantial support in the field. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022331173; http://tinyurl.com/3snjp7a4. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/47196.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.132
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.132
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0210.035
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0080.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0500.006

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 head0.400
GPT teacher head0.591
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→