High-Fat Diets in Animal Models of Alzheimer’s Disease: How Can Eating Too Much Fat Increase Alzheimer’s Disease Risk?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High dietary intake of saturated fatty acids is a suspected risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD). To decipher the causal link behind these associations, high-fat diets (HFD) have been repeatedly investigated in animal models. Preclinical studies allow full control over dietary composition, avoiding ethical concerns in clinical trials. The goal of the present article is to provide a narrative review of reports on HFD in animal models of AD. Eligibility criteria included mouse models of AD fed a HFD defined as > 35% of fat/weight and western diets containing > 1% cholesterol or > 15% sugar. MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched from 1946 to August 2022, and 32 preclinical studies were included in the review. HFD-induced obesity and metabolic disturbances such as insulin resistance and glucose intolerance have been replicated in most studies, but with methodological variability. Most studies have found an aggravating effect of HFD on brain Aβ pathology, whereas tau pathology has been much less studied, and results are more equivocal. While most reports show HFD-induced impairment on cognitive behavior, confounding factors may blur their interpretation. In summary, despite conflicting results, exposing rodents to diets highly enriched in saturated fat induces not only metabolic defects, but also cognitive impairment often accompanied by aggravated neuropathological markers, most notably Aβ burden. Although there are important variations between methods, particularly the lack of diet characterization, these studies collectively suggest that excessive intake of saturated fat should be avoided in order to lower the incidence of AD.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".