Ghrelin Levels in Elderly, Diabetic Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The etiology of cognitive impairment in diabetes is unknown, but probably associated with many factors. One of the recent hypotheses suggests that ghrelin could be involved in cognitive impairment in diabetic patients. It has been reported that ghrelin signaling occurs in the hippocampus and improves memory and spatial learning. The aim of this study was to evaluate serum levels of ghrelin in elderly, diabetic patients with and without mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and to determine the predictors of having MCI in elderly diabetics. Methods: The cross-sectional study was conduct among 276 elderly subjects with type 2 diabetes. 87 patients with MCI and 189 controls were selected according to the criteria proposed by the MCI Working Group of the European Consortium on Alzheimer’s Disease (using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment: MoCA score). Data of biochemical parameters and biomarkers were collected. The serum levels of ghrelin were assessed using ELISA kit. Results: Serum levels of ghrelin were significantly lower in patients with MCI compared to controls. In MCI patients serum ghrelin levels were positively correlated with MoCA score and negatively correlated with HbA1c and BMI. The logistic regression models revealed that variables which increased the likelihood of diagnosis of MCI in elderly diabetic patients were: lower levels of ghrelin, higher levels of HbA1c, hypertension, previous cardiovascular disease, increased number of co-morbidities, and less years of formal education. Conclusion: In summary, serum levels of ghrelin were decreased in MCI elderly diabetic patients compared to controls and associated with poor MoCA score. The results indicated that lower ghrelin levels may be a risk factor for a cognitive impairment in diabetic, elderly patients. Further prospective larger studies are needed to confirm the role of this marker in the progression to dementia.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".