MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524543870 · doi:10.2147/ndt.s111298

Type 2 diabetes mellitus might be a risk factor for mild cognitive impairment progressing to Alzheimer’s disease

2016· article· en· W2524543870 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaType 2 Diabetes MellitusRisk factorCognitionDiseaseOdds ratioLogistic regressionPopulationMontreal Cognitive AssessmentMini–Mental State ExaminationDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineGerontologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is the prodromal stage of Alzheimer’s disease (AD), so identification of the related risk factors can be helpful. Although the association between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and these modest changes in cognition is well established, whether T2DM will promote the transformation of MCI into AD is not a unified conclusion. Objective: This study aims to explore the relationship between T2DM and MCI in the elderly population living in the community in Shanghai, People’s Republic of China. Methods: A total of 197 participants were included in the study. They were screened for T2DM, hyperlipidemia, traumatic brain injury, and family history of dementia. The Mini-Mental State Examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment were used to assess cognitive function. The diagnosis of AD was made according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition , whereas the diagnosis of MCI was made according to Petersen’s criteria. Then, we investigated the relation between T2DM and MCI. Results: A total of 82 (41.6%) participants had no cognitive impairment, 82 (41.6%) participants had MCI, and 33 (16.8%) participants had AD. Multivariate logistic regression models demonstrated that T2DM was a risk factor for AD (odds ratio =49.723, 95% CI =21.173–111.987). Conclusion: T2DM might be a risk factor for MCI progressing into AD. Keywords: T2DM, AD, MCI, risk factor

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.295 · 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