This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

52/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 52 out of 100. Prevention and risk

Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment

Adjusted differences showed advantages in the 6-year change in STICS-m score of 0.25 (95% CI 0.04-0.45) for an increase of 1-SD (9 points) in the AHEI-2010 and of 0.27 (95% CI 0.05-0.48) for an increase of 1-SD (1.5 points) in the MIND diet. The MDP, DASH, and PVD scores yielded positive differences in their point estimates for an increase in 1-SD, but results were not statistically significant. The MIND diet appeared to modify changes in cognitive function over time. Our results showed a beneficial association between the MIND diet and cognitive function and suggested a benefit for the AHEI-2010 pattern. Results for the MDP, DASH, and PVD were inconclusive.

Key findings

Adjusted differences showed advantages in the 6-year change in STICS-m score of 0.25 (95% CI 0.04-0.45) for an increase of 1-SD (9 points) in the AHEI-2010 and of 0.27 (95% CI 0.05-0.48) for an increase of 1-SD (1.5 points) in the MIND diet.
The MDP, DASH, and PVD scores yielded positive differences in their point estimates for an increase in 1-SD, but results were not statistically significant.
The MIND diet appeared to modify changes in cognitive function over time.
Our results showed a beneficial association between the MIND diet and cognitive function and suggested a benefit for the AHEI-2010 pattern.
Results for the MDP, DASH, and PVD were inconclusive.

New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Prevention →

Study details

Participants806
Evidence strengthModerate

How this study scored 52/100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 52 out of 100.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	7 / 10	Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroepidemiology)
Journal's citation record	— / 4	No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	3 / 5	Rated “moderate” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	2 / 5	2020 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	806 participants
Effect reported	0 / 3	No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	— / 7	No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year	— / 5	No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year	— / 6	No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here	— / 6	Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited	— / 4	No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record	— / 4	Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record	— / 3	No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration	— / 3	Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31600758)
Free to read	— / 2	Access not recorded — left out of this score
Points	29 / 56	Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 29 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 52 out of 100.
Total	52 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Munoz-Garcia, M. I., Toledo, E., Razquin, C., Dominguez, L. J., Maragarone, D., Martinez-Gonzalez, J., et al. (2020). "A priori" Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Function in the SUN Project. Neuroepidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000502608

Vancouver

Munoz-Garcia MI, Toledo E, Razquin C, Dominguez LJ, Maragarone D, Martinez-Gonzalez J, et al. "A priori" Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Function in the SUN Project. Neuroepidemiology. 2020. doi:10.1159/000502608. PMID: 31600758.

BibTeX

@article{munozgarcia2020-31600758,
  author  = {Munoz-Garcia, Mariana I and Toledo, Estefania and Razquin, Cristina and Dominguez, Ligia J and Maragarone, Demetrius and Martinez-Gonzalez, Julio and Martinez-Gonzalez, Miguel A},
  title   = {{"A priori" Dietary Patterns and Cognitive Function in the SUN Project}},
  journal = {Neuroepidemiology},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.1159/000502608},
  pmid    = {31600758},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1159/000502608}
}

Related studies in Prevention and risk

Also tagged “metabolic-syndrome”

304 studies in the library carry the topic tag “metabolic-syndrome”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 304 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention and risk

See all studies in Prevention and risk →