Exploring the association between number of teeth, food intake, and cognitive function: A 9-year longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the association between the number of teeth, food intake, and cognitive function in Japanese community-dwelling older adults. METHODS: This 9-year longitudinal study included a total of 293 analyzable participants who participated in baseline and follow-up surveys. Dental status (number of teeth and periodontal pocket depth), dietary assessment using the brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire, cognitive function, and the following confounding factors were evaluated: educational level, financial satisfaction, living situation, smoking and drinking habits, history of chronic diseases, apolipoprotein E-ε4 carrier, body mass index, handgrip strength, instrumental activities of daily living, and depressive symptomatology. The Japanese version of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment was used to evaluate cognitive function. A multinomial logistic regression analysis for the intake level of each food categorized into three groups (low, moderate, high), and a generalized estimating equation (GEE) for cognitive function over nine years were performed. RESULTS: After controlling for confounding factors, the number of teeth was shown to be associated with the intake of green-yellow vegetables and meat. Furthermore, the GEE indicated that the lowest quartile of intake of green-yellow vegetables significantly associated with lower cognitive function (unstandardized regression coefficient [B] = -0.96, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: -1.72 to -0.20), and the lowest quartile of intake of meat significantly associated with lower cognitive function (B = -1.42, 95 % CI: -2.27 to -0.58). CONCLUSIONS: The intake of green and yellow vegetables and meat, which is influenced by the number of teeth, was associated with cognitive function in Japanese community-dwelling older adults. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: There are few studies that have examined the association between oral health, food intake, and cognitive function. This 9-year longitudinal study suggests that it is important to maintain natural teeth to enable the functional means to consume green-yellow vegetables and meat, and thereby help maintain cognitive function.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".