Cohort studyindependent cross-checkabstract checked★ key study I-SOD-104 in-depth review

No dementia link for diet drinks in older adults

Sweetened Beverages and Incident All-Cause Dementia Among Older Adults.

Overview

Chen H et al.. JAMA Psychiatry 2025 · PMID 40531522 · DOI 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.1230

Across six US cohorts with about 11,000 older adults, diet drinks were not linked to dementia (HR 1.00).

Does the study support the specific claim? No · Methodological quality: high

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Test whether sweetened drinks predict dementia in older adults.

How was the study done?

Pooled six long-term cohorts.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

10,974 adults aged 65+; 2445 dementia cases.

What was actually found?

No association for sugary or diet drinks.

How large was the observed effect?

ASB >=1/day HR 1.00 (0.83-1.21).

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Fear of tripled dementia risk from diet soda is not supported.

What are the study's limitations?

Late-life intake only.

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Contradicts the claim.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

Applicable.

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Cannot exclude effects of drinking diet soda in midlife.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Chen H et al.
Journal
JAMA Psychiatry
Year
2025
Identifier
PMID 40531522 DOI 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2025.1230
Verification
verified – PubMed efetch 2026-10-26 + Crossref 2026-10-26
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

NIA/NIH grants (PubMed record)

2. Research question

Is SSB or ASB intake associated with all-cause dementia in older adults?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Multicohort prospective analysis of six US cohorts with pooled Cox models
Population

US adults aged >=65 (HRS, ARIC, CHAP, MAP, Framingham original and offspring)

Country

USA

Period

Baselines 1986-2013

Sample size

10,974; 2445 incident dementia cases; 116,067 person-years

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Aged >=65, dementia-free at baseline; dementia ascertained >=2 years after baseline

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

SSB and ASB servings (validated FFQs)

Comparator

0 to <1 serving/month

Endpoints

Incident all-cause dementia

Statistical methods

Cohort-specific Cox models pooled by meta-analysis

5. Actual results

Results

Per serving/week: SSB HR 0.99 (0.98-1.01; I2 0%); ASB HR 1.00 (0.99-1.01; I2 1%). Highest (>=1/day) vs lowest: SSB HR 0.90 (0.78-1.03); ASB HR 1.00 (0.83-1.21). Positive control: Mediterranean diet HR 0.92 per 5 units.

Absolute risks

not reported in abstract

Authors' conclusion

Late-life consumption of SSB or ASB was not associated with dementia risk.

6. Strengths

  • Six cohorts; 2445 cases
  • Low heterogeneity
  • Positive-control exposure behaved as expected

7. Weaknesses

  • Late-life exposure only
  • Alzheimer subtype not separately reported in abstract
  • Includes Framingham offspring, overlapping with Pase 2017

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
ROBINS-E
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Observational; exposure in late life.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Weight of evidence ~23 times that of Pase's AD estimate (stats/C-SOD-06_stroke_dementia.py); the 'nearly triple' dementia estimate is not reproduced.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Directly contradicts the 'nearly triples dementia' part of C-SOD-06.

11. Independent contrary findings

Jouni 2025 meta-analysis (I-SOD-105) reported ASB-AD RR 1.42.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

Applicable to older adults.

13. Overall methodological judgement

Large, precise null result for dementia in older adults.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualityhigh
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultshigh
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilitypartly replicated
Consistency with the overall evidencemixed
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Midlife exposure; Alzheimer-specific outcomes.

15. Linked fact checks