The mediating role of nutritional indicators in the association between estimated glomerular filtration rate and cognitive impairment in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Cognitive impairment (CI) is common in older adults, especially those with renal dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the complex relationships among renal function, nutritional status, and CI in older people free from late chronic kidney disease (CKD) and severe CI. Methods A study of older people (≥60 years old) with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) of >30 mL/min/1.73 m 2 and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scores of >10 ( n = 237) was conducted at Beijing Tongren Hospital. Their eGFR was determined using the CKD‐EPI‐cr‐Cysc equation. Cognitive function was evaluated with the MoCA. We tested the relationship between eGFR and MoCA scores using Spearman correlation analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis. We then conducted a mediation analysis to figure out the mediating roles of nutritional indicators (Mini Nutritional Assessment‐Short Form (MNA‐SF) scores, albumin (ALB), and haemoglobin (HGB)) between the eGFR and MoCA scores. Results The incidence of CI was 48.5% (115/237) in older people. Spearman correlation analysis revealed that the better the kidney function, the better the cognitive function (R = 0.297, P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that eGFR decrease per 15 mL/min/1.73 m 2 (OR: 1.415, 95% confidence interval: 1.055–1.896, P = 0.020) was related to CI after adjusting for age and sex. However, the eGFR was not associated with cognitive decline after adjusting for nutritional indicators, behavioural risk factors, other biomarkers, and chronic conditions, suggesting that eGFR is not independently associated with CI. Mediation analysis revealed that the MNA‐SF scores (a*b = 0.006 (0.0002–0.012)) and HGB (a*b = 0.008 (0.001–0.017)) were mediating factors between the eGFR and MoCA scores. Conclusions A decline in renal function can directly lead to CI and can also exacerbate cognitive deficits through intermediary factors such as MNA‐SF scores and HGB. Therefore, correcting anaemia and improving nutritional status are significantly important for enhancing cognitive function in older patients, especially those with renal dysfunction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".