A Biethnic Community Survey of Cognition in Participants With Type 2 Diabetes, Impaired Glucose Tolerance, and Normal Glucose Tolerance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether elderly individuals with type 2 diabetes or impaired glucose tolerance are at increased risk for cognitive impairment compared with individuals with normal glucose tolerance. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Elderly Hispanic individuals (n = 414) and non-Hispanic white individuals (n = 469) aged > or =65 years, randomly selected from the Medicare rolls of Bernalillo County (Albuquerque), NM, were recruited for an interview/examination that included an evaluation of glucose tolerance. Information on nine tests of cognitive function and two measures of depression allowed comparisons between diabetic status and these functions. Comparisons also were made between glycosolated hemoglobin concentrations and these cognitive tests in the 188 participants with diabetes. RESULTS: None of the mean scores on the tests of cognitive function was significantly lower in the participants with diabetes compared with those participants with normal glucose tolerance after adjustments for ethnicity, sex, age, level of education, and presence of depression, with or without elimination of those with dementia (Mini-Mental State Exam <18). Interestingly, participants with impaired glucose tolerance tended to score higher than those with normal glucose tolerance. No significant associations were found between glycosolated hemoglobin concentrations and cognitive test scores in participants with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: We could not show any increased risk for cognitive impairment in participants with diabetes compared with those with normal glucose tolerance after adjustments for ethnicity, sex, age, education, and presence of depression, before or after elimination of dementia in this random sample from a biethnic population of predominantly community-dwelling elders.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".