MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2883691008 · doi:10.14744/semb.2018.37929

The relationship between polyneuropathy and cognitive functions in type 2 Diabetes Mellitus patients

2018· article· en· W2883691008 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sibel Mumcu Timer

Notice bibliographique

RevueSiSli Etfal Hastanesi Tip Bulteni / The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Hospital · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPolyneuropathyMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaRisk factorCoronary artery diseaseType 2 diabetesDiseasePhysical therapyEndocrinology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a risk factor for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), Alzheimer's disease and vascular dementia. However, it is not known which pathophysiological mechanisms lead to impairment in cognitive functions in Type 2 DM. This study aims to compare the cognitive functions of diabetic patients with and without polyneuropathy using standardized Mini-Mental Test (MMSE) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Scale (MoCA) and to assess whether the presence of polyneuropathy is a predictive factor for the development of cognitive impairment. METHODS: Patients with DM who underwent our EMG laboratory for polyneuropathy between January 2014 and January 2015 were included in this study. Patients who underwent electrophysiological examinations were evaluated for polyneuropathy. Patients with polyneuropathy were classified as a patient group and other patients as a control group. In all cases, MMSE and MoCA were administered. The demographic data and educational status of the patients were recorded. Hypertension, coronary artery disease, smoking and alcohol use were questioned. Their complaints, duration of illness and the treatment they were receiving were questioned. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HBA1C) values in the last three months and physical examination findings of patients were recorded. Patients with and without polyneuropathy were compared with statistical methods. RESULTS: Polyneuropathy was detected in 34 (42%) of the 81 patients who participated in our study. The age, disease duration and HBA1C levels were statistically higher in the polyneuropathy group than in the control group (p=0.024, p=0.000, p=0.016). However, there was no statistically significant difference between MMSE and MoCA scores of these groups. In both groups, there were no patients scoring below the MMSE cut-off value of 24. Seventeen of the 34 patients (50%) in the polyneuropathic group and 19 (40,4%) of the 47 patients in the control group had scores below the MoCA cut-off value 21. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups. We also found that the mean MoCA value of all DM patients was 21, which was the MoCA cut-off value. Also, factors affecting cognitive functions in all Type 2 DM patients were evaluated by logistic regression analysis, and it was found that duration of education was an independent factor affecting cognitive impairment (OR=8.167; p=0.001). CONCLUSION: In our study, we did not observe significant differences between MMSE and MoCA scores of Type 2 DM patients with and without polyneuropathy. However, the cross-sectional nature of our study makes it impossible to comment on this issue. To clarify whether the presence of polyneuropathy is a predictive factor in the development of cognitive impairment in Type 2 DM, there is a need for a larger sample group and long-term follow-up studies. It has also been shown that patients with Type 2 DM may have low scores according to the MOBID cut-off value even though peripheral neurologic involvement findings are not observed. In the Type 2 DM population, it has also been shown that MoCA may be affected by education level.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,034
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,731

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,013
Tête enseignante GPT0,250
Écart entre enseignants0,237 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueSiSli Etfal Hastanesi Tip Bulteni / The Medical Bulletin of Sisli HospitalMême sujetParkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsTravaux en français237 207