No Differences in Urine Bisphenol A Concentrations between Subjects Categorized with Normal Cognitive Function and Mild Cognitive Impairment Based on Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A link between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and cognitive disorders has been suggested. However, the differences in BPA concentrations between subjects with and without cognitive impairment have not been analysed. Therefore, this observational study aimed to compare urine BPA levels in subjects with normal cognitive function (NCF) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). A total of 89 MCI subjects and 89 well-matched NCF individuals were included in this study. Cognitive functions were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) scale. Urine BPA concentrations were evaluated by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry and adjusted for creatinine levels. Moreover, anthropometric parameters, body composition, sociodemographic factors, and physical activity were also assessed. Creatinine-adjusted urine BPA levels did not differ between the NCF and MCI groups (1.8 (1.4–2.7) vs. 2.2 (1.4–3.6) µg/g creatinine, p = 0.1528). However, there were significant differences in MOCA results between groups when the study population was divided into tertiles according to BPA concentrations (p = 0.0325). Nevertheless, multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that only education levels were independently associated with MCI. In conclusion, urine BPA levels are not significantly different between subjects with MCI and NCF, but these findings need to be confirmed in further studies.
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 | 0.000 | 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".