Association between hemoglobin levels and mild cognitive impairment in generally healthy European community-dwelling older adults: a 3-year prospective analysis of the DO-HEALTH trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although numerous cross-sectional studies have examined the relationship between anemia and cognitive impairment or dementia in older adults, data from larger longitudinal studies, especially in generally healthy older adults, are limited. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the associations between baseline hemoglobin levels, anemia, and mild cognitive impairment (MCI) over 3 y in generally healthy older adults. METHODS: This is an observational analysis of the 3-y DO-HEALTH trial, a double-blind, randomized controlled trial including 2157 European community-dwelling adults age 70+. Cognition was assessed at baseline, 12, 24, and 36 mo using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). MCI was defined as a MoCA score <26 at 2 consecutive time points. The exposures were the quintiles of hemoglobin levels and anemia at baseline. Logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations controlled for age, sex, prior falls, study site, treatment allocation, body mass index, number of comorbidities, smoking status, use of iron supplements, alcohol consumption, renal function, and vitamin B12 levels. RESULTS: A total of 2150 participants were included in the analyses (mean age of 74.9 y; 61.7% females). Compared with the lowest quintile, participants in all higher quintiles had a significantly lower odds of MCI: 2nd = 34% lower odds of MCI [odds ratio (OR) = 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.47, 0.93; P = 0.02], 3rd = 39% (OR = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.86; P = 0.005), 4th = 44% (OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.39, 0.82; P = 0.003), and 5th = 36% (OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43, 0.97; P = 0.03). For anemia, there was no association with the odds of MCI over time. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline hemoglobin levels >130 g/L were associated with reduced odds of MCI over 3 y. Although this study does not establish causality, it suggests further investigations in monitoring and managing hemoglobin levels, even in generally healthy older adults. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01745263.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".