Does left ventricular hypertrophy affect cognition and brain structural integrity in type 2 diabetes? Study design and rationale of the Diabetes and Dementia (D2) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in type 2 diabetes mellitus, and there is a strong association between type 2 diabetes and Alzheimer's disease. However, we do not know which type 2 diabetes patients will dement or which biomarkers predict cognitive decline. Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is potentially such a marker. LVH is highly prevalent in type 2 diabetes and is a strong, independent predictor of cardiovascular events. To date, no studies have investigated the association between LVH and cognitive decline in type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes and Dementia (D2) study is designed to establish whether patients with type 2 diabetes and LVH have increased rates of brain atrophy and cognitive decline. METHODS: The D2 study is a single centre, observational, longitudinal case control study that will follow 168 adult patients aged >50 years with type 2 diabetes: 50% with LVH (case) and 50% without LVH (control). It will assess change in cardiovascular risk, brain imaging and neuropsychological testing between two time-points, baseline (0 months) and 24 months. The primary outcome is brain volume change at 24 months. The co-primary outcome is the presence of cognitive decline at 24 months. The secondary outcome is change in left ventricular mass associated with brain atrophy and cognitive decline at 24 months. DISCUSSION: The D2 study will test the hypothesis that patients with type 2 diabetes and LVH will exhibit greater brain atrophy than those without LVH. An understanding of whether LVH contributes to cognitive decline, and in which patients, will allow us to identify patients at particular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12616000546459 ), date registered, 28/04/2016.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".