ArticleMedicine2026
The association between Naples prognostic score and cognitive function in older adults: A cross-sectional study of NHANES 2011 to 2014.
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the Naples prognostic score (NPS) and cognitive function in older adults. This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 2759 participants aged 60 years and older, with a mean age of 69.2 ± 6.6 years, from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2011 to 2014 data. Participants were categorized into 2 groups based on NPS: Group 1 (NPS = 0-2) and Group 2 (NPS = 3-4). Cognitive function was assessed using the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Word Learning subtest, Animal Fluency Test (AFT), and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). A global composite z-score was also calculated. Multivariable linear and logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between NPS and cognitive outcomes, with adjustments for sociodemographic and health-related confounders. In the fully adjusted models, a higher NPS was associated with lower AFT, DSST, and composite z-scores, whereas no significant association was observed with the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease Word Learning subtest score. Compared with the low-NPS group, the high-NPS group had significantly lower AFT scores (β = -1.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.89 to -0.88), DSST scores (β = -1.82, 95% CI: -3.11 to -0.53), and composite z-scores (β = -0.43, 95% CI: -0.62 to -0.24), all with P < .05. Logistic regression further showed that the high-NPS group had higher odds of cognitive impairment according to the AFT (odds ratio = 1.41, 95% CI: 1.04-1.92) and DSST (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% CI: 1.00-2.14), both with P < .05. No statistically significant interactions were detected in the subgroup analyses (all P for interaction > .05). This study revealed the possible association between a high NPS and poorer cognitive performance, especially in terms of verbal fluency and processing speed. These findings suggest that the NPS may provide supplementary information for identifying individuals with poorer cognitive performance. However, the cross-sectional design precludes temporal or causal inference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.