Role of obesity-related anthropometric indicators on cognitive function in obese older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The association between obesity and cognitive function in older adults remains inconsistent due to the use of various anthropometric indicators, such as body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC), and waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). More conclusive evidence is warranted. The aim of this study was to systematically summarize and synthesize the association between specific obesity-related anthropometric indicators (BMI, WC, and WHR) and cognitive function in obese older adults. Higher BMI, WC, or WHR is linked to cognitive decline in this population. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was carried out using PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from their inception to October 2023). Studies investigating the association between obesity indicators, including BMI, WC, WHR, and cognitive performance in older adults were included. The weighted mean difference (WMD), Odds Ratio, and 95 % confidence interval (CI) were used to estimate the pooled effect size. A random-effects model was employed as the main method. Subgroup analyses and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were assessed (registered number: CRD42023461770). RESULTS: Thirty-three eligible studies, involving 83,251 participants, were included. Obese older adults, as assessed by WC, had lower Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores than non-obese counterparts (WMD -0.84, 95 % CI -1.64 to -0.05, very low certainty). Those measured by WHR had a 31 % higher risk of cognitive impairment (OR 1.31, 95 % CI 1.12 to 1.53, moderate certainty). Subgroup analysis revealed a lower Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score in obese group classified by WHO criteria compared to controls (WMD -1.67, 95 % CI -2.94 to -0.39). CONCLUSION: This review suggests an association between obesity, as measured by WHR and WC, and poorer cognitive performance in older adults. WHR is moderately recommended for identifying cognitive impairment-related obesity, while WC recommendations are limited by very low evidence certainty.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".