Title |
Mediterranean diet adherence is associated with lower dementia risk, independent of genetic predisposition: findings from the UK Biobank prospective cohort study
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Medicine, March 2023
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12916-023-02772-3 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Oliver M. Shannon, Janice M. Ranson, Sarah Gregory, Helen Macpherson, Catherine Milte, Marleen Lentjes, Angela Mulligan, Claire McEvoy, Alex Griffiths, Jamie Matu, Tom R. Hill, Ashley Adamson, Mario Siervo, Anne Marie Minihane, Graciela Muniz-Tererra, Craig Ritchie, John C. Mathers, David J. Llewellyn, Emma Stevenson |
Abstract |
The identification of effective dementia prevention strategies is a major public health priority, due to the enormous and growing societal cost of this condition. Consumption of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet) has been proposed to reduce dementia risk. However, current evidence is inconclusive and is typically derived from small cohorts with limited dementia cases. Additionally, few studies have explored the interaction between diet and genetic risk of dementia. We used Cox proportional hazard regression models to explore the associations between MedDiet adherence, defined using two different scores (Mediterranean Diet Adherence Screener [MEDAS] continuous and Mediterranean diet Pyramid [PYRAMID] scores), and incident all-cause dementia risk in 60,298 participants from UK Biobank, followed for an average 9.1 years. The interaction between diet and polygenic risk for dementia was also tested. Higher MedDiet adherence was associated with lower dementia risk (MEDAS continuous: HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65-0.91; PYRAMID: HR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.73-1.02 for highest versus lowest tertiles). There was no significant interaction between MedDiet adherence defined by the MEDAS continuous and PYRAMID scores and polygenic risk for dementia. Higher adherence to a MedDiet was associated with lower dementia risk, independent of genetic risk, underlining the importance of diet in dementia prevention interventions. |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 87 | 30% |
United Kingdom | 47 | 16% |
Spain | 5 | 2% |
Australia | 4 | 1% |
India | 3 | 1% |
Italy | 2 | <1% |
Japan | 2 | <1% |
Brazil | 2 | <1% |
Germany | 2 | <1% |
Other | 19 | 7% |
Unknown | 116 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 210 | 73% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 39 | 13% |
Scientists | 37 | 13% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 1% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 45 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 14 | 31% |
Unspecified | 14 | 31% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
Student > Master | 3 | 7% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 4% |
Other | 7 | 16% |
Unknown | 2 | 4% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unspecified | 17 | 38% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 24% |
Neuroscience | 7 | 16% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 11% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 4% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 2 | 4% |