Effects of the MIND Diet on the Cognitive Function of Older Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) diet is a brain-focused dietary pattern designed to prevent cognitive decline in older adults. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, aimed to examine the association between the MIND diet and cognitive function in older adults. Relevant studies published between 2015 and 2024 were identified through comprehensive searches of PubMed and the Cochrane Library using keywords including "MIND diet," "cognitive performance," and "older adults." From a total of 138 records screened, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria after excluding reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, and those incorporating other lifestyle interventions such as physical activity or education. These studies included 7 prospective cohort studies, 2 cross-sectional studies, 1 randomized controlled trial (RCT), and 1 case-control study, comprising a total of 17,201 participants aged 57-91 years. Across studies, at least 57% of participants were women, and in the 5 studies reporting race, more than 75% were White. Dietary intake and MIND adherence were assessed primarily via food frequency questionnaires, while cognitive outcomes were evaluated using validated instruments including the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, global cognition scores, Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease tests, and magnetic resonance imaging. Six cohort and two cross-sectional studies reported significant associations between higher MIND adherence and better cognitive outcomes. One cohort study and the single RCT showed no effect. Excluding 2 studies with short durations (≤ 3 years), the remaining nine studies suggest consistent cognitive benefits of MIND adherence. Future studies should include systematic reviews and large-scale RCTs focusing on Asian populations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".