Relationships among serum C-reactive protein, receptor for advanced glycation products, metabolic dysfunction, and cognitive impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We examined the clinical value of two serum markers of low-grade inflammation, C-reactive protein (CRP) and receptor of advanced glycation products (RAGE), as prognostic indices for cognitive decline. METHODS: Patients with cognitive impairment (n = 377) and controls (n = 66) were examined by blood biochemistry tests, including ELISAs of serum CRP and RAGE, the Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), and STEAM 1H-MRS of the left hippocampus and thalamus. RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the cognitive impairment group was older (63.10 ± 9.70 years vs. 55.09 ± 10.77 years, P = 0.000) and had fewer years of formal education (9.01 ± 4.01 vs. 12.94 ± 3.0, P = 0.000). There were no significant differences in the frequencies of type 2 diabetes, hypertension, or hyperlipidemia between groups. Serum CRP and RAGE were higher in the cognitive impairment group (CRP: 2.08 mg/L, range 1.07 - 3.36 mg/L vs. 0.21 mg/L, range 0.18 - 0.42 mg/L; RAGE: 4.01, range 2.49 - 5.71, vs. 2.28, range 1.84 - 3.03; P < 0.05 for both). In patients with cognitive impairment, there were negative correlations between cognitive function (as measured by MMSE and MoCA) and both CRP and RAGE levels (P < 0.05). Patients over 55 years exhibited a positive correlation between CRP and myo-inositol peak area in the left hippocampus (P < 0.05), while there was no relationship between RAGE and any metabolite (P > 0.05). Multiple linear regression revealed that CRP was influenced by hypertension (P = 0.026) and cognitive impairment (P = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Chronic low-grade inflammation is present in patients with cognitive impairment. Serum CRP, RAGE, and left hippocampal myo-inositol may provide prognostic information on cognitive decline.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".