The Relationship Between the Score on a Simple Measure of Cognitive Function and Incident CVD in People With Diabetes: A Post Hoc Epidemiological Analysis From the ACCORD-MIND Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context and Objective: Diabetes is associated with a greater risk for incident cardiovascular disease and cognitive dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate, in people with type 2 diabetes, the association of a simple measure of cognitive function to cardiovascular disease events and mortality. Design, Setting, Participants, Measurements, and Outcomes: The Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial included persons with longstanding type 2 diabetes. A substudy of 2977 (Memory in Diabetes) participants aged 55 years or older aimed to test the effect of the interventions on brain structure and function. At baseline, participants were administered a cognitive battery that included the digit symbol substitution test (DSST). The associations of the DSST and the ACCORD primary outcome (the first occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction or nonfatal stroke or death from cardiovascular causes) and all-cause mortality were investigated with Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for several demographic and clinical variables. Results: Median follow-up time was 4.27 years. An inverse relationship between the incidence of the ACCORD primary outcome and baseline cognitive score was demonstrated. A 1-point higher DSST score was associated with a lower incidence of the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 0.987; 95% confidence interval, 0.977 to 0.998; P = 0.019), after adjustment for demographic and clinical trial factors, additional baseline cardiovascular risk factors, and self-reported need for assistance to follow the protocol. Conclusion: Lower scores on the DSST, a simple, sensitive neuropsychological instrument, are associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events in persons >55 years old with longstanding diabetes.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".