A Principal Component Analysis of Metabolome and Cognitive Decline Among Japanese Older Adults: Cross-sectional Analysis Using Tohoku Medical Megabank Cohort Study Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dementia is the leading cause of disability and imposes a significant burden on society. Previous studies have suggested an association between metabolites and cognitive decline. Although the metabolite composition differs between Western and Asian populations, studies targeting Asian populations remain scarce. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used data from a cohort survey of community-dwelling older adults aged ≥60 years living in Miyagi, Japan, conducted by Tohoku Medical Megabank Organization between 2013 and 2016. Forty-three metabolite variables quantified using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy were used as explanatory variables. Dependent variable was the presence of cognitive decline (≤23 points), assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination. Principal component (PC) analysis was performed to reduce the dimensionality of metabolite variables, followed by logistic regression analysis to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for cognitive decline. RESULTS: A total of 2,940 participants were included (men: 49.0%, mean age: 67.6 years). Among them, 1.9% showed cognitive decline. The first 12 PC components (PC1-PC12) accounted for 71.7% of the total variance. Multivariate analysis showed that PC1, which mainly represented essential amino acids, was associated with lower odds of cognitive decline (OR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-0.98). PC2, which mainly included ketone bodies, was associated with cognitive decline (OR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51). PC3, which included amino acids, was associated with lower odds of cognitive decline (OR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.99). CONCLUSION: Amino acids are protectively associated with cognitive decline, whereas ketone metabolites are associated with higher odds of cognitive decline.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".