Table 3.

Associations between nut intake and cognitive function of older adults in the US, stratified by NAFLD risk groups, using linear regression models that also included age, sex, race, Healthy Eating Index scores, history of cardiovascular disease, history of type 2 diabetes, meeting physical activity guidelines, household size, ration of family income-to-poverty, smoking status, and education status

	NAFLD Risk Categories a
	FLI<30 b n=726	30≤FLI<60 b n=483	FLI≥60 b n=639
CERAD Total
Nuts consumption group
Low vs. non-consumers	0.10 (-0.89, 1.09)	0.98 (-0.15, 2.10)	-0.73 (-1.81, 0.35)
Moderate vs. non-consumers	0.90 (-0.28, 2.08)	0.12 3(-1.85, 2.09)	1.84 (0.34, 3.34)*
Met vs. non-consumers	-0.05 (-1.33, 1.23)	1.54 (0.12, 2.96)*	0.69 (-0.77, 2.15)
Delayed Recall
Nuts consumption group
Low vs. non-consumers	-0.18 (-0.70, 0.34)	0.25 (-0.50, 1.00)	-0.01 (-0.56, 0.54)
Moderate vs. non-consumers	0.25 (-0.43, 0.94)	-1.12 (-2.51, 0.28)	1.11 (0.32, 1.91)*
Met vs. non-consumers	-0.18 (-0.95, 0.58)	0.39 (-0.65, 1.44)	0.75 (-0.01, 1.51)
Animal Fluency
Nuts consumption group
Low vs. non-consumers	0.52 (-0.72, 1.75)	1.30 (-0.02, 2.62)	0.09 (-1.46, 1.65)
Moderate vs. non-consumers	1.98 (0.28, 3.70)*	0.88 (-1.24, 3.00)	1.54 (-0.27, 3.34)
Met vs. non-consumers	2.04 (0.71, 4.00)*	1.75 (-0.41, 3.91)	0.54 (-2.30, 3.39)
Digit-Symbol Substitution Test
Nuts consumption group
Low vs. non-consumers	-0.14 (-3.54, 3.25)	1.96 (-1.65, 5.56)	0.28 (-2.83, 3.39)
Moderate vs. non-consumers	3.69 (-0.96, 8.33)	6.94 (2.15, 11.70)*	1.42 (-4.00, 6.84)
Met vs. non-consumers	2.63 (-2.18, 7.44)	1.78 (-3.23, 6.80)	1.24 (-3.03, 5.51)

^aValues are beta-coefficients and 95%CI, and significance indicated as * (p<0.05)

^bFatty Liver Index (FLI): Rules out NAFLD risk (FLI<30), inconclusive (FLI 30-60), likely presence of NAFLD (FLI>60)