MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repurposing of Anti-Diabetic Agents for the Treatment of Cognitive Impairment and Mood Disorders

2016· review· en· W2343019844 on OpenAlexaff
Danielle Cha, M. Vahtra, Juweiriya Ahmed, Paul Kudlow, Rodrigo B. Mansur, A.F. Carvalho, Roger S. McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Molecular Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTryptophan and brain disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaMoodCognitionMood disordersDiseasePsychologyBioinformaticsDepression (economics)MedicineNeuroscienceClinical psychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineAnxietyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impairments in cognitive function represent a consistent, non-specific, and clinically significant feature in metabolic, mood, and dementing disorders. The foregoing observation is instantiated by evidence demonstrating that these disorders share pathophysiological mechanisms including, but not limited to, aberrant insulin signaling, inflammation, and glucocorticoid activity. Moreover, these mechanisms have been consistently reported to increase vulnerability to and/or exacerbate impairments in cognitive function. Notwithstanding evidence suggesting a bidirectional relationship between disturbances in the metabolic milieu, mood, and increased risk for dementia, efficacious treatments that target cognitive impairments in these populations do not presently exist. Taken together, it is proposed that anti-diabetic agents may aid the management of mood disorders and future risk for dementia through disease modification by targeting underlying pathophysiological mechanisms (e.g., aberrant metabolic function) rather than focusing solely on symptom mitigation. The current aim is to provide a brief narrative review of extant studies that report on the potential neurotherapeutic effects of anti-diabetic agents on disturbances in mood and impairments in cognitive function.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Molecular MedicineSame topicTryptophan and brain disordersFrench-language works237,207