P1‐188: PREVALENCE AND RISK FACTORS OF COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT IN PATIENTS WITH DIABETES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes Mellitus has been associated with cognitive impairment, affecting learning and memory, mental flexibility, and mental speed.Diabetes is highly prevalent in Saudi Arabia, with a reported prevalence of18-30%.We attempted to study the prevalence of cognitive impairment in an out-patient population of diabetics, and the possible risk factors. A cross sectional study was carried out fromJune 9 to July 20, 2012 which included a total of 171 outpatients with diabetes, matched with 68 controls . Volunteers underwent cognitive assessment using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test (MoCA), and the Rowland Universal Dementia Assessment Scale (RUDAS). Both have been validated beforeby being compared against the Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE). The RUDAS has a specificity of 95.8% and sensitivity of 81% (Rowland et al). Cognitive assessments were carried out by researchers who were trained by experienced geriatricians prior to the study period. Baseline Characteristics are summerized in table 1. Among diabetics, 142 patients (83%) scored normal on the RUDAS and 29 (17.1%) scored below normal, compared to 65 control subjects (98.5%) with normal results and only 1 (1.5%) subject scored abnormal, p=.001.The results were not significant when the MoCA was used, as 85.8% of the cases and 80.6% of the controls had abnormal results. P=0.337. A highly significant correlation was observed between RUDAS and MoCA.They also demonstrated a direct and significant correlation with the subjects' level of education and body mass index, and they both demonstrated an inverse, highly significant correlation with the age of the subjects. The waist circumference showed a direct but not statistically significant correlation with both RUDAS and MoCA.RUDAS exhibited a direct but not significant correlation with Hb A1c levels, geriatric depression scores, and mean arterial pressure. Cognitive impairment is more prevalent in diabetics than non diabetics. Older age and a limited education increase the risk, while a higher BMI might be protective. RUDAS is a simple and quick test for cognitive impairment particularly in populations with limited education.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".