MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809562026 · doi:10.2337/db18-362-or

Cognitive Function and Brain Plasticity in Obese Patients—The Impact of Bariatric Surgery

2018· article· en· W2809562026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angela Dardano, GIUSEPPE DANIELE, Claudia Lunghi, Annamaria Ciccarone, Ferruccio Santini, Giovanni Ceccarini, Carlo Moretto, Giuseppe Penno, Roberto Miccoli, Maria Concetta Morrone, Stefano Del Prato

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBariatric Surgery and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineObesityMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaCognitionEndocrinologySurgeryPsychiatryDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aim: Obesity adversely affects brain function, but the effect of bariatric surgery on cognitive function is still poorly evaluated. We assessed metabolic parameters and cognitive function in obese patients before and after bariatric surgery (RYGB). Methods: A 75g OGTT was performed in 10 nondiabetic obese patients (BMI 46.0±5.4 kg/m2; age 43.6±10.5 years; HbA1c 43.3±4.6 mmol/mol) before and 6-months after RYGB for measurements of metabolic parameters. Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were administered; neuronal plasticity (NP) of the visual cortex was measured as change in ocular dominance after 120 min monocular deprivation. No subject with drugs or alcohol abuse, psychiatric illness, head injury, brain tumor, dementia, epilepsy, learning disorder, developmental disability, and impaired sensory function were included. Results: At baseline median MMSE score was 28.5 (range 25-30) and median MoCA score 26.5 (range 21-30), indicating early cognitive abnormalities (MoCA<26 points). Six months after RYGB, BMI decreased to 35.2±6.1 kg/m2 (p=0.004) and glucose tolerance did not change. HOMA-IR (from 5.1±2.3 to 1.6±1.1) and disposition index (from 3.3±4.6 to 35.0±41.0) all improved (p<0.05); post-OGTT GLP-1 increased from 5336.6±2262.6 to 11132.3±3412.2 pmol/lx120min (p<0.05) and fasting plasma leptin decreased from 80.0±46.7 to 13.1±6.6 pmol/l (p<0.008). NP increased from 0.03±0.1 to 0.11±0.14 (p<0.01). Cognitive performance improved in all subjects (MMSE: 30, range 28-30; MoCA: 28.5, range 24-30; both p=0.03 or less vs. baseline). There was no correlation between MoCA and metabolic changes though it was positively correlated with NP post-RYGB (p=0.04). Conclusion: Morbid obese subjects have subclinical cognitive impairments and brain plasticity alterations that significantly improve after RYGB. While no correlation was found between metabolic and hormonal changes, NP was positively associated with MoCA score. Disclosure A. Dardano: None. G. Daniele: None. C. Lunghi: None. A. Ciccarone: None. F. Santini: None. G. Ceccarini: None. C. Moretto: None. G. Penno: None. R. Miccoli: None. M. Morrone: None. S. Del Prato: Advisory Panel; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Intarcia Therapeutics, Inc., Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Servier, Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. Research Support; Self; Merck & Co., Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.. Advisory Panel; Self; Janssen Biotech, Inc., Abbott.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicBariatric Surgery and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207