Optimal dietary patterns for healthy aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the global population ages, it is critical to identify diets that, beyond preventing noncommunicable diseases, optimally promote healthy aging. Here, using longitudinal questionnaire data from the Nurses' Health Study (1986-2016) and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (1986-2016), we examined the association of long-term adherence to eight dietary patterns and ultraprocessed food consumption with healthy aging, as assessed according to measures of cognitive, physical and mental health, as well as living to 70 years of age free of chronic diseases. After up to 30 years of follow-up, 9,771 (9.3%) of 105,015 participants (66% women, mean age = 53 years (s.d. = 8)) achieved healthy aging. For each dietary pattern, higher adherence was associated with greater odds of healthy aging and its domains. The odds ratios for the highest quintile versus the lowest ranged from 1.45 (95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.35-1.57; healthful plant-based diet) to 1.86 (95% CI = 1.71-2.01; Alternative Healthy Eating Index). When the age threshold for healthy aging was shifted to 75 years, the Alternative Healthy Eating Index diet showed the strongest association with healthy aging, with an odds ratio of 2.24 (95% CI = 2.01-2.50). Higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unsaturated fats, nuts, legumes and low-fat dairy products were linked to greater odds of healthy aging, whereas higher intakes of trans fats, sodium, sugary beverages and red or processed meats (or both) were inversely associated. Our findings suggest that dietary patterns rich in plant-based foods, with moderate inclusion of healthy animal-based foods, may enhance overall healthy aging, guiding future dietary guidelines.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".