A Meta-Analysis of Cognitive Functioning in Nondemented Adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The current investigation sought to determine the pattern and magnitude of cognitive functioning deficits in persons with type 2 diabetes mellitus without dementia using meta-analysis to consolidate findings in the literature. METHODS: MedLine and PsychInfo databases were searched to identify studies of cognitive functioning in persons with type 2 diabetes. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were calculated for the differences in cognitive functioning between subjects with type 2 diabetes and controls without diabetes on classified cognitive abilities. Average d values were calculated for all cognitive abilities across studies. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified. Persons with type 2 diabetes performed significantly lower than controls without diabetes (p<0.05) on all cognitive abilities evaluated, with effect sizes ranging from -0.14 to -0.37. The largest effect sizes were processing speed (with motor task demands), M -0.37 (95% CI, -0.41 to -0.32), and divided attention/shifting, M -0.36 (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.31). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 diabetes leads to mild to moderate deficits in all measured cognitive abilities. There was a lack of published studies investigating type 2 diabetes-associated variables; therefore, additional meta-analyses investigating the impact of these variables on cognitive functioning in type 2 diabetes could not be performed. As such, data from individual studies must be reported consistently to allow for investigation of variables that may affect the relationship between type 2 diabetes and cognitive functioning. Given the present findings, clinicians working with patients with type 2 diabetes should be alerted to the possibility of cognitive changes that could impact type 2 diabetes treatment management or require referral for neuropsychological assessment.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it