This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
INTRODUCTION: Diet plays a critical role in the prevention and treatment of cognitive impairment, yet dietary intake in patients with cognitive impairment in China remains insufficiently studied. METHODS: A 25-item semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire was used in a national online survey in China. The Dietary Inflammatory Index was calculated, and principal component analysis was used to identify dietary patterns. RESULTS: The average daily energy intake was 1131.59 ± 486.30 kcal, below recommended levels. Patients in the pro-inflammatory diet group had lower intakes of nutrients than those in the anti-inflammatory group. Ordinal logistic regression indicated that adherence to a high-quality protein dietary pattern was associated with lower cognitive impairment severity, whereas the high cereal and snack dietary pattern was associated with increased severity. CONCLUSION: Inadequate intake of essential nutrients, particularly energy and protein, exacerbates cognitive decline. Promoting high-quality protein intake while reducing low-quality carbohydrates may mitigate cognitive deterioration and improve patient health outcomes. HIGHLIGHTS: Cognitive impairment patients in China show significantly low intake of energy, protein, and essential nutrients, which contributes to malnutrition and exacerbates cognitive decline. The study finds a link between inadequate nutrient intake and increased dietary inflammatory potential, which may accelerate cognitive decline. The pro-inflammatory deit with higher Dietary Inflammatory Index resulted from an overall insufficient intake of nutrients rather that the comsumption of excessively high levels of "pro-inflammatory" foods in patients. Dietary patterns with higher high-quality protein and lower low-quality carbohydrate intake may benefit nutritional status and cognitive health in cognitively impaired patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bian et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: