Cognitive and affective functions in Alzheimer's disease patients with metabolic syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The influence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on cognitive and affective functions in patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD) was examined. METHODS: A total of 570 AD patients were divided into two subgroups depending on waist circumference (WC) (normal versus achieving Japanese diagnostic criteria of MetS). Afterwards, the AD control subgroup was defined as those normal WC patients with no vascular risk factors (VRFs). The AD with MetS (AD-MetS) subgroup was defined as the MetS WC group who had two or more VRFs to qualify as having MetS. Cognitive and affective functions, insulin resistance, vascular endothelial function and white matter changes between AD-MetS and AD controls were compared. RESULTS: Scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination, Hasegawa Dementia Score-Revised, Frontal Assessment Battery and Montreal Cognitive Assessment were worse in the AD-MetS group than in AD controls, but the difference was not significant. Some analyses were conducted twice, once including all patients and once including only late-elderly patients. Scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale were found to be significantly higher for AD-MetS than for AD controls (all ages, late-elderly), as were those for apathy (late-elderly). Furthermore, both the homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance and reactive hyperemia index scores were significantly worse in AD-MetS than in AD controls, whilst white matter changes showed a tendency to be worse. CONCLUSIONS: Greater cognitive and affective decline occurs in patients with AD-MetS than in those without. Further, insulin resistance and vascular endothelial dysfunction are strongly correlated with AD-MetS before pathological white matter changes can be observed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".