A comparative study of cognitive function and reaction time in obese and non-obese adults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective Obesity may negatively affect the physical health and cognitive functions of individuals and delay their reaction time to stimuli. However, the association among obesity, cognitive functions, and reaction times is yet to be fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of obesity on cognitive functions and visual and auditory reaction times in adults.Methods Data of 100 participants (50 obese and 50 normal) were analyzed in the study. Anthropometric parameters and 24-h dietary recall data were recorded. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to evaluate the cognitive functions, Simple Reaction Time Task (SRTT)-Visual and SRTT-Auditory were used to assess visual and auditory reaction times of the participants, respectively.Results The mean MoCA score of the obese was significantly lower than normal (17.46 and 25.22, respectively; p < 0.001). In addition, the mean auditory (p < 0.001) and visual (p < 0.05) reaction times of obese were significantly longer than normal. Similarly, this condition was also observed for the fastest and lowest values of auditory and visual reaction times. Additionally, obesity caused a decrease in the MoCA score (β = -0.762; p < 0.001) and delayed visual (β = 0.423; p < 0.001) and auditory (β = 0.590; p < 0.001) reactions. The negative effect of obesity was maintained after controlling for potential factors (MoCA, β = -0.594; p < 0.001; SRTT-Auditory, β = 0.409; p < 0.01; SRTT-Visual, β = 0.330; p < 0.05).Conclusion Obese participants showed worse cognitive, auditory and visual performance. Additional research will be necessary in the future to shed light on the fundamental mechanisms involved.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it