Obesity-Associated Neurodegeneration Pattern Mimics Alzheimer’s Disease in an Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Excess weight in adulthood leads to health complications such as diabetes, hypertension, or dyslipidemia. Recently, excess weight has also been related to brain atrophy and cognitive decline. Reports show that obesity is linked with Alzheimer’s disease (AD)-related changes, such as cerebrovascular damage or amyloid-β accumulation. However, to date no research has conducted a direct comparison between brain atrophy patterns in AD and obesity. Objective: Here, we compared patterns of brain atrophy and amyloid-β/tau protein accumulation in obesity and AD using a sample of over 1,300 individuals from four groups: AD patients, healthy controls, obese otherwise healthy individuals, and lean individuals. Methods: We age- and sex-matched all groups to the AD-patients group and created cortical thickness maps of AD and obesity. This was done by comparing AD patients with healthy controls, and obese individuals with lean individuals. We then compared the AD and obesity maps using correlation analyses and permutation-based tests that account for spatial autocorrelation. Similarly, we compared obesity brain maps with amyloid-β and tau protein maps from other studies. Results: Obesity maps were highly correlated with AD maps but were not correlated with amyloid-β/tau protein maps. This effect was not accounted for by the presence of obesity in the AD group. Conclusion: Our research confirms that obesity-related grey matter atrophy resembles that of AD. Excess weight management could lead to improved health outcomes, slow down cognitive decline in aging, and lower the risk for 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".