Determinants of Cognitive Function in Individuals with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with deficits across multiple cognitive domains; however, the determinants of cognitive impairment in T2DM are not well characterized. We aimed to evaluate body mass index (BMI), glycemic control, and T2DM duration as moderators of cognitive dysfunction in T2DM. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analytic review of the literature reporting data on BMI, hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), T2DM duration, and validated measures of processing speed (ie, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, Trail Making Test [TMT]-A), verbal learning and memory (ie, Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test), and working memory/executive function (ie, TMT-B) among individuals with vs without T2DM. RESULTS: Individuals with T2DM demonstrated deficits across multiple cognitive domains (k = 40; n = 4,252 T2DM; n = 22,322 non-T2DM; effect sizes 0.21 to 0.35). Illness duration and BMI did not significantly moderate measures of cognition; however, higher HbA1c levels were significantly associated with deficits in measures of processing speed (R2 values 0.41 to 0.73, P < .01) and working memory/executive function (R2 = 0.62, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with T2DM exhibited significant deficits across multiple domains of cognitive function. Additionally, we identified an association between poorer glycemic control and cognitive dysfunction. A clinical translation of our findings relates to the reduction in morbidity by improving glycemic control.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".