MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346637990 · doi:10.1016/j.jalz.2016.03.017

Waist circumference is correlated with poorer cognition in elderly type 2 diabetes women

2016· article· en· W2346637990 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca West, Ramit Ravona‐Springer, Anthony Heymann, James Schmeidler, Derek LeRoith, Keren Koifman, Ryan C.N. D’Arcy, Xiaowei Song, Elizabeth Guerrero‐Berroa, Rachel Preiss, Hadas Hoffman, Mary Sano, Jeremy M. Silverman, Michal Schnaider Beeri

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsSurrey Memorial HospitalSimon Fraser UniversityFraser Health
FundersHelen Bader FoundationNational Institute on AgingAlzheimer's Association
KeywordsWaistType 2 diabetesCircumferenceCognitionConfoundingCategorizationDementiaMedicineEpisodic memoryDiabetes mellitusGerontologyPsychologyObesityInternal medicinePsychiatryEndocrinologyDiseaseArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Waist circumference is associated with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cognition, yet the relationship between waist circumference and cognition in individuals with T2D is not well understood. METHODS: We studied the relationship of waist circumference with five cognitive outcomes (executive functioning, language/semantic categorization, attention/working memory, episodic memory, and an overall cognition measure) in 845 cognitively normal elderly with type 2 diabetes (T2D). RESULTS: In women, waist circumference was correlated with significantly lower language and/or semantic categorization performance (P < .0001), executive functioning (P = .026), and overall cognition (P = .003) after controlling for age, education, BMI, and cardiovascular, diabetes-related, APOE ε4, and inflammatory potential confounders. Attention/working memory (P = .532) and episodic memory (P = .144) were not associated with waist circumference. These correlations were not found in men. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that central adiposity in elderly women with T2D may increase their risk for dementia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations34
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207