Effect of time-restricted eating and intermittent fasting on cognitive function and mental health in older adults: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Emerging evidence suggests that dietary interventions hold promise for promoting cognitive function and mental well-being in aging populations. This systematic review aimed to examine the potential relationship between Time-Restricted Eating (TRE) and Intermittent Fasting (IFA) with cognitive function and mental health in older adults. Methods: A thorough exploration was undertaken on electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar, up to October 2023, following PRISMA standards. The evaluation of the quality and potential bias in the incorporated articles involved the use of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Results: From a total of 539 articles initially identified, eight studies met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review. Out of these eight studies, six focused on cognitive function, and 2 focused on mental health. The reviewed articles encompassed a wide range of population sizes, with the number of older adults studied varying from 10 to 1357, reflecting a diverse cohort of individuals. Conclusions.The findings suggest that TRE and IFA may have a positive impact on cognitive function and mental health in this population. However, additional research is needed to fully comprehend this relationship. Therefore, future research should specifically examine factors such as the duration and timing of the eating window in TRE, as well as the physical condition of older adults, to provide a more nuanced understanding of the cognitive and mental health benefits of TRE and IFA in older adults.
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 | 0.006 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".