MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2253565082 · doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.02.014

Biomarkers for Early Diagnostic of Mild Cognitive Impairment in Type-2 Diabetes Patients: A Multicentre, Retrospective, Nested Case–Control Study

2016· article· en· W2253565082 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zhipeng Xu, Sulian Yang, Chenghong Zheng, Honghua Li, Yao Zhang, Rongxi Huang, Mengzhu Li, Yuan Gao, Shujuan Zhang, Peiyan Zhan, Lifang Zhang, Lin Deng, Sheng Wei, Yanchao Liu, Jingwang Ye, Hu-jun Ren, Na Li, Cai-Xia Kong, Xin Wang, Lin Fang, Qiuzhi Zhou, Hongwei Jiang, Jing‐Rong Li, Qun Wang, Dan Ke, Gong‐Ping Liu, Jian‐Zhi Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueEBioMedicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMedicineClinical Dementia RatingOdds ratioInternal medicineType 2 Diabetes MellitusMontreal Cognitive AssessmentConfidence intervalType 2 diabetesCase-control studyDiabetes mellitusDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Both type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and Alzheimer's disease (AD) are common age-associated disorders and T2DM patients show an increased risk to suffer from AD, however, there is currently no marker to identify who in T2DM populations will develop AD. Since glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) activity, ApoE genotypes and olfactory function are involved in both T2DM and AD pathogenesis, we investigate whether alterations of these factors can identify cognitive impairment in T2DM patients. METHODS: The cognitive ability was evaluated using Minimum Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), and the mild cognitive impairment (MCI) was diagnosed by Petersen's criteria. GSK-3β activity in platelet, ApoE genotypes in leucocytes and the olfactory function were detected by Western/dot blotting, the amplification refractory mutation system (ARMS) PCR and the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center (CCCRC) test, respectively. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the biomarkers for MCI diagnosis were calculated by logistic regression. The diagnostic capability of the biomarkers was evaluated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses. FINDINGS: We recruited 694 T2DM patients from Jan. 2012 to May. 2015 in 5 hospitals (Wuhan), and 646 of them met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. 345 patients in 2 hospitals were assigned to the training set, and 301 patients in another 3 hospitals assigned to the validation set. Patients in each set were randomly divided into two groups: T2DM without MCI (termed T2DM-nMCI) or with MCI (termed T2DM-MCI). There were no significant differences for sex, T2DM years, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, coronary disease, complications, insulin treatment, HbA1c, ApoE ε2, ApoE ε3, tGSK3β and pS9GSK3β between the two groups. Compared with the T2DM-nMCI group, T2DM-MCI group showed lower MMSE score with older age, ApoE ε4 allele, higher olfactory score and higher rGSK-3β (ratio of total GSK-3β to Ser9-phosphorylated GSK-3β) in the training set and the validation set. The OR values of age, ApoE ε4 gene, olfactory score and rGSK-3β were 1.09, 2.09, 1.51, 10.08 in the training set, and 1.06, 2.67, 1.47, 7.19 in the validation set, respectively. The diagnostic accuracy of age, ApoE ε4 gene, olfactory score and rGSK-3β were 0.76, 0.72, 0.66, 0.79 in the training set, and 0.70, 0.68, 0.73, 0.79 in the validation set, respectively. These four combined biomarkers had the area under the curve (AUC) of 82% and 86%, diagnostic accuracy of 83% and 81% in the training set and the validation set, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Aging, activation of peripheral circulating GSK-3β, expression of ApoE ε4 and increase of olfactory score are diagnostic for the mild cognitive impairment in T2DM patients, and combination of these biomarkers can improve the diagnostic accuracy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEBioMedicineSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207