alzhub.org
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.

Home › Research › Prevention trials

Which components of the Mediterranean diet are associated with dementia? A UK Biobank cohort study

Dobreva I, Marston L, Mukadam N.. GeroScience, 2022-07-06

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 76 out of 100. Prevention trials

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Cohort studies suggest that the Mediterranean diet is associated with better global cognition in older adults, slower cognitive decline and lower risk of dementia. However, little is known about the relative contribution of each component of the Mediterranean diet to dementia risk or whether the diet's effects are due to one or more specific food components. We aimed to examine whether Mediterranean diet components are associated with all-cause dementia risk in the UK BioBank cohort. Participants joined the UK Biobank study from 2006 to 2010 and were followed until December 2020. 249,511 participants, who were at least 55 years old, without dementia at baseline were included. We used self-reported consumption of food groups, considered part of the Mediterranean diet including fruit, vegetables, processed meat, unprocessed red meat and unprocessed poultry, fish, cheese, wholegrains. Incident dementia was ascertained through electronic linkage to primary care records, hospital and mortality records or self-report. In this study with a total follow-up of 2,868,824 person-years (median 11.4), after adjusting for all covariates and other food groups, moderate fish consumption of between 2.0 and 3.9 times a week was associated with decreased risk of dementia (HR 0.84, 95%CI 0.71-0.98) compared to no consumption. Additionally, fruit consumption of between 1.0 and 1.9 servings a day was associated with reduced dementia risk (HR 0.85, 95%CI 0.74-0.99) compared to no consumption. No other Mediterranean diet components were associated with dementia risk suggesting that fish consumption may drive the beneficial effects seen from the Mediterranean diet. Further study of potential mechanisms and diet-based intervention trials are needed to establish this.

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

APA 7th

Dobreva, I., Marston, L., & Mukadam, N. (2022). Which components of the Mediterranean diet are associated with dementia? A UK Biobank cohort study. GeroScience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00615-2

Vancouver

Dobreva I, Marston L, Mukadam N. Which components of the Mediterranean diet are associated with dementia? A UK Biobank cohort study. GeroScience. 2022. doi:10.1007/s11357-022-00615-2. PMID: 35794436.

BibTeX

@article{dobreva2022-35794436,
  author  = {Dobreva, I. and Marston, L. and Mukadam, N.},
  title   = {{Which components of the Mediterranean diet are associated with dementia? A UK Biobank cohort study}},
  journal = {GeroScience},
  year    = {2022},
  doi     = {10.1007/s11357-022-00615-2},
  pmid    = {35794436},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-022-00615-2}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

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

Study details

How this study scored 76/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 7 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 7 of 12; Strength of evidence 3 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 3 of 5; Sample size 4 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 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 2 of 2. 44 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 76 of 100. Total 76 of 100.44 of the 58 points we could judge = 76 of 100

Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for 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 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 76 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 7 / 10 Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (GeroScience)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 7 / 12 A cohort study following people over time
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 3 / 5 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 4 / 4 249,511 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
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 35794436)
Free to read 2 / 2 Free to read
Points 44 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 44 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 76 out of 100.
Total 76 / 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 Prevention trials

Also tagged “biobank”

1,084 studies in the library carry the topic tag “biobank”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 1,084 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Prevention trials

See all studies in Prevention trials →