MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2892671925 · doi:10.1177/1533317518802453

Evaluation of Cognitive Functions of Individuals Older Than 65 With Diagnosis of Diabetes

2018· article· en· W2892671925 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Serap Gökçe Eskin, Canan Demir Barutçu

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias® · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyclinicMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionGerontologyDiabetes mellitusMedicineScale (ratio)PsychologyClinical psychologyFamily medicineCognitive impairmentPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was conducted in order to examine the level of cognitive function of individuals ≥65 years of age with diabetes. The cross-sectional descriptive design was used. The research was carried out in the diabetes polyclinic of a university hospital between June 2016 and January 2018. The study sample consisted of 91 patients. Data were collected with the scale of Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The average score of the patients in the MoCA Scale was found to be 19.61 ± 1.70 (min: 15, max: 26). Diabetes is a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction for individuals above 65 years of age. Health professionals regularly monitor the cognitive functions of diabetic patients and use the MoCA scale in these follow-up and plan training and counseling initiatives according to their needs.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Alzheimer s Disease & Other Dementias®Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207