Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

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.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 45 out of 100. Cognitive tests and assessment

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Background Modifiable lifestyle factors such as diet are associated with cognitive decline and dementia. Greater understanding of the nutritional intake of older adults who are at increased risk for cognitive decline may allow for the development of more effective dietary interventions to prevent or delay the onset of dementia. Objectives The purpose of this study was to characterize the nutritional status, diet quality and individual nutritional components of older adults with motoric cognitive risk syndrome (MCR). MCR is a pre-dementia syndrome classified by slow gait speed and subjective memory impairments. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting A community-based senior center located in an urban setting. Participants Twenty-five community-dwelling older adults with MCR aged 60-89 yrs. Measurements Nutritional risk status was determined using the Nestle Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA). A food frequency questionnaire was used to quantify: overall dietary quality using the Healthy Eating Index (HEI); adherence to the Mediterranean-DASH for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) dietary pattern; and intake of individual nutritional components shown to be protective or harmful for cognitive function in older adults. Participants completed a computerized cognitive testing battery to assess cognitive abilities. Results More than one third (36%) of participants were at increased risk for malnutrition. Participants at lower risk for malnutrition had better working memory (r = 0.40, p = 0.04), executive functioning (r = 0.44, p = 0.03), and overall cognition (r = 0.44, p = 0.03). While participants generally consumed a reasonable quality diet (HEI = 65.15), 48% of participants had poor adherence to a neuroprotective MIND dietary pattern. Higher intake of B-complex vitamins was associated with better task switching (r = 0.40, p ≤ 0.05) and faster processing speeds (r = 0.39, p ≤ 0.05). Higher vitamin C intake was associated with better executive functioning (r = 0.40, p ≤ 0.05). Conclusions Our findings suggest that a significant proportion of older adults with MCR may be at increased risk for malnutrition. While the diet quality of older adults with MCR appeared to need improvement, future studies should investigate the effects of more specific nutritional interventions, including the MIND diet, on cognition in at-risk older adults.

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

APA 7th

White, S. A., Ward, N., Verghese, J., Kramer, A. F., Grandjean da Costa, K., Liu, C. K., et al. (2020). NUTRITIONAL RISK STATUS, DIETARY INTAKE AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN OLDER ADULTS WITH MOTORIC COGNITIVE RISK SYNDROME. JAR life. https://doi.org/10.14283/jarlife.2020.10

Vancouver

White SA, Ward N, Verghese J, Kramer AF, Grandjean da Costa K, Liu CK, et al. NUTRITIONAL RISK STATUS, DIETARY INTAKE AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN OLDER ADULTS WITH MOTORIC COGNITIVE RISK SYNDROME. JAR life. 2020. doi:10.14283/jarlife.2020.10. PMID: 36034540.

BibTeX

@article{white2020-36034540,
  author  = {White, S. A. and Ward, N. and Verghese, J. and Kramer, A. F. and Grandjean da Costa, K. and Liu, C. K. and Kowaleski, C. and Reid, K. F.},
  title   = {{NUTRITIONAL RISK STATUS, DIETARY INTAKE AND COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE IN OLDER ADULTS WITH MOTORIC COGNITIVE RISK SYNDROME}},
  journal = {JAR life},
  year    = {2020},
  doi     = {10.14283/jarlife.2020.10},
  pmid    = {36034540},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.14283/jarlife.2020.10}
}

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 8 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.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 45/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 4 of 12; Strength of evidence 1 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 2 of 5; Sample size 0 of 4; Effect reported 0 of 3; Studied in people 0 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 26 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 45 of 100. Total 45 of 100.26 of the 58 points we could judge = 45 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a snapshot of people at one point in time. Scored zero for sample size, effect reported, studied in people 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 45 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (JAR life)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 4 / 12 A snapshot of people at one point in time
Strength of evidence 1 / 5 Rated “low” 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 0 / 4 Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Effect reported 0 / 3 No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Studied in people 0 / 3 Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
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 36034540)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 26 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 26 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 45 out of 100.
Total 45 / 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.

Related studies in Cognitive tests and assessment

Also in Cognitive tests and assessment

109 studies in the library are filed under Cognitive tests and assessment with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Cognitive tests and assessment hub.

Similar studies

More on Cognitive tests and assessment

See all studies in Cognitive tests and assessment →