Cognitive Functioning in Toxic Oil Syndrome Survivors: A Case-Control Study Four Decades After the Epidemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Toxic oil syndrome (TOS) was a major food-borne epidemic that occurred in Spain in May 1981, caused by the ingestion of rapeseed oil adulterated with aniline. While the somatic sequelae of TOS have been well documented, its long-term cognitive consequences remain poorly understood more than four decades after exposure. Methods: In this case-control study, 50 individuals with clinically confirmed TOS were compared to 50 healthy controls matched for age, sex, and education. All participants completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment, along with questionnaires evaluating fatigue, anxiety, depression, and health-related quality of life. Multivariate regression models were adjusted for demographic and vascular risk factors, as well as for mood symptoms, fatigue, and use of central nervous system-acting medications. Structural equation modeling was used to explore the potential mediating effects of affective and fatigue symptoms on cognitive performance. Results: TOS survivors showed significantly poorer performance than controls in attention, executive function, processing speed, and global cognition after adjusting for demographic and vascular risk factors. However, these differences were no longer statistically significant after additional adjustment for fatigue, depression, anxiety, and central nervous system-acting medications. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed that affective symptoms—particularly fatigue—substantially mediated the relationship between TOS and cognitive performance. Conclusions: The cognitive profile observed mirrors that of disorders characterized by subcortical dysfunction and impaired neural connectivity, such as multiple sclerosis and vascular cognitive impairment. Although early postmortem studies in TOS did not demonstrate overt white matter lesions, our findings raise the possibility of long-lasting alterations involving both white and gray matter networks. These results emphasize the need to consider mood and fatigue symptoms when evaluating cognition in TOS survivors and point to the potential for widespread, enduring neurobiological effects stemming from the original toxic exposure.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".