ReviewGeroScience2025
Metabolic syndrome and risk of dementia and cognitive decline: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies from 6,753,197 participants.
Review in GeroScience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Infection, vaccination and risk of dementia: a proposed immunological model.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous findings on the link between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and the risk of all-cause dementia, Alzheimer's disease (AD), vascular dementia (VD), and cognitive decline are inconsistent. We systematically searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus up to June 2025 for prospective cohort studies conducted in community-based settings among adults aged 18 years or older that reported risk estimates (e.g., relative risks, hazard ratios, or odds ratios) for the association between MetS and the risk of dementia or cognitive decline. Risk of bias for studies were assessed using ROBINS-I, and the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to evaluate the certainty of evidence. Relative risks (RR) with 95%CI were computed using a random-effects inverse-variance method. Twenty-eight cohorts involving 6,753,197 participants were examined. MetS was significantly associated with a higher risk of all-cause dementia (RR = 1.11, 95%CI: 1.07-1.14; absolute risk difference: 2 more cases per 1000 persons), VD (RR = 1.33, 95%CI: 1.21-1.46; absolute risk difference: 7 more per 1000), and cognitive decline (RR = 1.24, 95%CI: 1.10-1.40; absolute risk difference: 5 more per 1000), all based on low-certainty evidence. No significant association was found between MetS and AD, with very low certainty. MetS components of hypertension, hyperglycemia, and low HDL-C were key risk factors, with a dose-response relationship observed between the number of MetS components and dementia risk. Subgroup analyses indicated MetS increased all-cause dementia risk in individuals under 70 (p-value for interaction: 0.048). MetS was positively associated with increased risk of all-cause-dementia, VD, and cognitive decline, but not AD. However, the effect sizes were modest and the certainty of evidence was low. Further prospective cohort studies are needed to confirm the associations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41252085What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.