Rosiglitazone and Cognitive Stability in Older Individuals With Type 2 Diabetes and Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Studies have suggested that insulin resistance plays a role in cognitive impairment in individuals with type 2 diabetes. We aimed to determine whether an improvement in insulin resistance could explain cognitive performance variations over 36 weeks in older individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 97 older individuals (mean +/- SD age 76 +/- 6 years) who had recently (<2 months) started an antidiabetes treatment of metformin (500 mg twice a day) (n = 30) or metformin (500 mg/day)+rosiglitazone (4 mg/day) (n = 32) or diet (n = 35) volunteered. The neuropsychological test battery consisted of the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), Rey Verbal Auditory Learning Test (RAVLT) total recall, and Trail Making Tests (TMT-A and TMT-B) performed at baseline and every 12 weeks for 36 weeks along with clinical testing. RESULTS: At baseline, no significant differences were found between groups in clinical or neuropsychological parameters. Mean +/- SD values in the entire population were as follows: A1C 7.5 +/- 0.5%, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) 8.6 +/- 1.3 mmol/l, fasting plasma insulin (FPI) 148 +/- 74 pmol/l, MMSE 24.9 +/- 2.4, TMT-A 61.6 +/- 42.0, TMT-B 162.8 +/- 78.7, the difference between TMT-B and TMT-A [DIFFBA] 101.2 +/- 58.1, and RAVLT 24.3 +/- 2.1. At follow-up, ANOVA models tested changes in metabolic control parameters (FPI, FPG, and A1C). Such parameters improved in the metformin and metformin/rosiglitazone groups (P(trend) < 0.05 in both groups). ANCOVA repeated models showed that results for the metformin/rosiglitazone group remained stable for all neuropsychological tests, and results for the diet group remained stable for the MMSE and TMT-A and declined for the TMT-B (P(trend) = 0.024), executive efficiency (DIFFBA) (P(trend) = 0.026), and RAVLT memory test (P(trend) = 0.011). Results for the metformin group remained stable for the MMSE and TMTs but declined for the RAVLT (P(trend) = 0.011). With use of linear mixed-effects models, the interaction term, FPI x time, correlated with cognitive stability on the RAVLT in the metformin/rosiglitazone group (beta = -1.899; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone may protect against cognitive decline in older individuals with type 2 diabetes and MCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".