MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2363831887

Study on the relationship between hypoglycemia and cognitive function in type 2 diabetes cases

2015· article· en· W2363831887 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lin Zong-xu

Bibliographic record

VenueHaixia yufang yixue zazhi · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoglycemiaComplicationMedicineDiabetes mellitusCognitionBody mass indexLogistic regressionRisk factorInternal medicinePediatricsPhysical therapyEndocrinologyPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To explore the relationship between hypoglycemia,especially recurrent hypoglycemia and cognitive function in type 2 diabetes cases and analyze the influencing factors.Methods Totally 133 the cases were evaluated with Montreal Cognitive Assessments(MOCA)and divided into two groups,normal cognition group(A,31 cases,score≥26)and impaired cognitive function group(B,102 cases,score26).The indexes including age,education level,progress of the diabetes,hypoglycemia,hypertension,body mass index(BMI),the complication,level of cholesterols and triglycerides were analyzed with single factor,and influencing factors were analyzed by logistic regression method.Results Compared with group B,younger age,lower frequency of hypoglycemia,shorter course of diabetes,less complication,lower hyperlipidemia and BMI and higher education level were in group A.Conclusion The frequency of hypoglycemia,the complication and progress of diabetes,age,BMI,cholesterols and triglycerides are risk factors for cognitive disorder,and education level is protective factor.Frequency of hypoglycemia and diabetic complication play key role for cognitive disorder.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.118 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHaixia yufang yixue zazhiSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207