↓ Skip to main content

Effect of the NU-AGE Diet on Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
100 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effect of the NU-AGE Diet on Cognitive Functioning in Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2018.00349
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna Marseglia, Weili Xu, Laura Fratiglioni, Cristina Fabbri, Agnes A. M. Berendsen, Agata Bialecka-Debek, Amy Jennings, Rachel Gillings, Nathalie Meunier, Elodie Caumon, Susan Fairweather-Tait, Barbara Pietruszka, Lisette C. P. G. M. De Groot, Aurelia Santoro, Claudio Franceschi

Abstract

Background: Findings from animal and epidemiological research support the potential neuroprotective benefits from healthy diets. However, to establish diet-neuroprotective causal relations, evidence from dietary intervention studies is needed. NU-AGE is the first multicenter intervention assessing whether a diet targeting health in aging can counteract the age-related physiological changes in different organs, including the brain. In this study, we specifically investigated the effects of NU-AGE's dietary intervention on age-related cognitive decline. Materials and Methods: NU-AGE randomized trial (NCT01754012, clinicaltrials.gov) included 1279 relatively healthy older-adults, aged 65-79 years, from five European centers. Participants were randomly allocated into two groups: "control" (n = 638), following a habitual diet; and, "intervention" (n = 641), given individually tailored dietary advice (NU-AGE diet). Adherence to the NU-AGE diet was measured over follow-up, and categorized into tertiles (low, moderate, high). Cognitive function was ascertained at baseline and at 1-year follow-up with the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD)-Neuropsychological Battery and five additional domain-specific single cognitive tests. The raw scores from the CERAD subtests [excluding the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE)] and the single tests were standardized into Z-scores. Global cognition (measured with MMSE and CERAD-total score), and five cognitive domains (perceptual speed, executive function, episodic memory, verbal abilities, and constructional praxis) were created. Cognitive changes as a function of the intervention were analyzed with multivariable mixed-effects models. Results: After the 1-year follow-up, 571 (89.1%) controls and 573 (89.8%) from the intervention group participated in the post-intervention assessment. Both control and intervention groups showed improvements in global cognition and in all cognitive domains after 1 year, but differences in cognitive changes between the two groups were not statistically significant. However, participants with higher adherence to the NU-AGE diet showed statistically significant improvements in global cognition [β 0.20 (95%CI 0.004, 0.39), p-value = 0.046] and episodic memory [β 0.15 (95%CI 0.02, 0.28), p-value = 0.025] after 1 year, compared to those adults with lower adherence. Discussion: High adherence to the culturally adapted, individually tailored, NU-AGE diet could slow down age-related cognitive decline, helping to prevent cognitive impairment and dementia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 24%
Student > Bachelor 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Researcher 8 6%
Professor 6 4%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 42 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 20 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 8%
Psychology 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Other 26 19%
Unknown 45 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 25 March 2022.
All research outputs
#1,089,330
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#597
of 15,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,973
of 346,610 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#23
of 436 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 346,610 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 436 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 94% of its contemporaries.