Cognitive function in dyslipidemia patients: exploring the impact of statins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Evidence regarding the relationship between the use of statins and cognitive outcomes presents varying findings. This study aims to analyze the relationship between sustained statin use and cognitive performance in dyslipidemia patients. Methods This study presents findings from the Beijing Ageing Brain Rejuvenation Initiative (BABRI) study, in which a cohort of community-dwelling dyslipidemia patients (Entire sample, N = 1,062, aged 50–86) was recruited. Participants were divided into two groups based on their sustained use statins (Statins group, N = 677) or not use any lipid-lowering agents (Untreated group, N = 385). Furthermore, the entire sample was stratified by age into the middle-aged sample (N = 451) and the older people sample (N = 611), following a similar categorization based on statin application. ANCOVA was used to evaluate the relationship between sustained statin use and cognitive function. Results Overall, in the total sample, the statins group demonstrated better cognition in overall cognition, memory, visuospatial ability, attention, executive function, and language domains compared to the untreated group. Moreover, the statins group only showed better performance in attention among the middle-aged sample. In the older people sample, statins group exhibited superior cognitive performance across various cognitive domains compared to untreated group. Conclusion Among dyslipidemia patients in Beijing community, sustained statin users exhibited superior cognitive function across all domains compared to untreated individuals, with particularly noticeable improvements among those aged 65 and above. These findings underscore the protective effect of statins on cognitive function in dyslipidemia patients, highlighting significant benefits for the older people population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".