| Title |
Impact of legumes and plant proteins consumption on cognitive performances in the elderly
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-017-1209-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elisa Mazza, Antonietta Fava, Yvelise Ferro, Marta Moraca, Stefania Rotundo, Carmela Colica, Francesco Provenzano, Rosa Terracciano, Marta Greco, Daniela Foti, Elio Gulletta, Diego Russo, Domenico Bosco, Arturo Pujia, Tiziana Montalcini |
| Abstract |
Numerous studies have investigated the role of the dietary factors in the prevention of cognitive decline but the short-term effects of foods choice on cognitive performances in the elderly are poorly explored. Our aim was to investigate the choice of foods among elderly Italian individuals and the association with cognitive function. In this longitudinal study, the participants were 214 individuals aged ≥65 years with a score >20 at the Mini Mental State Examination. The cognitive sub-test of ADAScale was used to detect cognitive decline progression over 12 months. Food choices was measured by a combination of a 24-h recall and a seven-day diet record and Principal Components Analysis. The Principal Components Analysis identified four food and four nutrient patterns. MMSE and ADAS-cog score after 1 year were found to be associated with legumes pattern (B = 0.25, p = 0.007; 95% CI 0.07/0.44; and B = -0.10, p = 0.006; CI -0.79/-0.30, respectively). A dietary pattern including plant proteins was independently associated with an improved ADAS-cog after 1 year (B = 0.584, p = 0.04; OR 1.79, CI 0.04-0.42). The Principal Components Analysis is useful to investigate the choice of foods and nutrients in the elderly. We demonstrated an association between legumes pattern with cognitive performances. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 33 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 15 | 45% |
| Georgia | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Germany | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 14 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 61% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 8 | 24% |
| Scientists | 5 | 15% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 85 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 10% |
| Unknown | 37 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 15% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 14% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 6% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 9% |
| Unknown | 40 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 200. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2024.
All research outputs
#198,768
of 25,571,620 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#52
of 4,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,111
of 327,799 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#4
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,571,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,799 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.