MIND diet and cognitive performance in older adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive decline is a rapidly increasing public health concern. A healthy diet has potential in preserving brain and maintaining cognitive health. This systematic review was designed to evaluate the relationship between Mediterranean-DASH diet intervention for neurodegenerative delay (MIND) diet and cognitive functioning in older adults. PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases were searched to extract original studies on humans published until July 2020, without date restrictions. Articles that evaluated the association between MIND diet and cognitive performance in older adults were included. Duplicated and irrelevant studies were screened out and data were obtained through critical analysis. Quality of the articles and risk of bias was assessed by Newcastle-Ottawa and Cochrane Collaboration's quality assessment tools. Of the 135 studies retrieved, 13 articles (9 cohort, 3 cross-sectional, and 1 RCT studies) were included in the final review. All of the included studies indicated that adherence to the MIND diet was positively associated with specific domains, but not all, of cognition and global cognitive function (78% of the studies) in older adults. MIND diet was superior to other plant-rich diets including Mediterranean, Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension, Pro-Vegetarian and Baltic Sea diets, for improving cognition. Adherence to the MIND diet may possibly be associated with an improved cognitive function in older adults. MIND diet may be superior to other plant-rich diets for improving cognition.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".