Diet, Pace of Biological Aging, and Risk of Dementia in the Framingham Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: People who eat healthier diets are less likely to develop dementia, but the biological mechanism of this protection is not well understood. We tested the hypothesis that healthy diet protects against dementia because it slows the pace of biological aging. METHODS: We analyzed Framingham Offspring Cohort data. We included participants ≥60 years-old, free of dementia and having dietary, epigenetic, and follow-up data. We assessed healthy diet as long-term adherence to the Mediterranean-Dash Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay diet (MIND, over 4 visits spanning 1991-2008). We measured the pace of aging from blood DNA methylation data collected in 2005-2008 using the DunedinPACE epigenetic clock. Incident dementia and mortality were defined using study records compiled from 2005 to 2008 visit through 2018. RESULTS: Of n = 1,644 included participants (mean age 69.6, 54% female), n = 140 developed dementia and n = 471 died over 14 years of follow-up. Greater MIND score was associated with slower DunedinPACE and reduced risks for dementia and mortality. Slower DunedinPACE was associated with reduced risks for dementia and mortality. In mediation analysis, slower DunedinPACE accounted for 27% of the diet-dementia association and 57% of the diet-mortality association. INTERPRETATION: Findings suggest that slower pace of aging mediates part of the relationship of healthy diet with reduced dementia risk. Monitoring pace of aging may inform dementia prevention. However, a large fraction of the diet-dementia association remains unexplained and may reflect direct connections between diet and brain aging that do not overlap other organ systems. Investigation of brain-specific mechanisms in well-designed mediation studies is warranted. ANN NEUROL 2024;95:1069-1079.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".