Cognition and its relationship with differential white cell count among obese undergraduates in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Studies have linked obesity with cognitive impairment and low-grade inflammation; however, results have been inconsistent. The aim of this study was to compare global cognitive function and its relationship with indices of obesity and total and differential white blood cell (WBC) counts in obese and normal-weight undergraduates in Kano, Nigeria. Materials and Methods: Eighty participants (40 obese and 40 normal weights) were randomly recruited for this case–control descriptive study. Anthropometric indices were measured according to the World Health Organization’s Stepwise protocol; global cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), while the WBC count was performed by manual Leishman staining technique. Data were analyzed on statistical package for social science using an independent t -test, Chi-square test of association, Pearson’s correlation, and simple linear regression. Results: The mean age of the participants is 24 years, obese a year older ( t = -2.2, P = 0.030). There was no significant difference in global cognitive function score (MoCA score) between the obese and normal-weight participants ( t = -1.08, P = 0.283). However, 40% of the normal weight and 42% of the obese participants had mild cognitive impairment. Similarly, the two groups did not differ in total and differential WBC count except for %monocyte, which was higher in normal-weight participants ( t = 2.22, P = 0.029). None of the anthropometric and WBC indices correlated with the MoCA score; however, %monocyte was negatively correlated with body mass index (BMI) ( r = -0.244, P = 0.029), waist circumference ( r = -0.216, P = 0.050), hip circumference ( r = -0.234, P = 0.037), and wait-to-height ratio ( r = -0.245, P = 0.028) among the whole while %lymphocyte was negatively correlated with BMI ( r = -0.311, P = 0.050) among obese participants. Conclusion: Obesity is not associated with a decline in cognitive function and inflammation in obese and normal-weight undergraduates in Nigeria.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".