MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998383291 · doi:10.21037/atm.2019.12.113

The factors contributing to cognitive dysfunction in type 2 diabetic patients

2020· article· en· W2998383291 on OpenAlex
San-Shan Xia, Wen-Lin Xia, Jiaojiao Huang, Huajie Zou, Jing Tao, Yan Yang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Translational Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDementiaMedicineMontreal Cognitive AssessmentInternal medicineRisk factorCognitionClinical Dementia RatingWaistDiabetes mellitusType 2 Diabetes MellitusType 2 diabetesGerontologyObesityPsychiatryDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUNDS: The aim of the research was to investigate the factors contributing to cognitive dysfunction in type 2 diabetic patients, to distinguish the complex relationship between diabetic retinopathy (DR) and different cognitive status. METHODS: Two hundred and ninety-seven type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients were enrolled in our study. We adopted the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Mini-mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA) to evaluate the cognitive function. Firstly, cognition status was classified into dementia and non-dementia according to MMSE and CDR. Patients with non-dementia were further classified into mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and normal cognition status based on MOCA. The factors contributing to cognitive dysfunction were analyzed. RESULTS: Among the 297 T2DM subjects, 47 were enrolled in the dementia group and 174 in the MCI group according to a battery of cognitive function tests, presenting a prevalence of 15.8% and 58.6% respectively. After adjustment for age, sex, and education level, waist circumference and DR were risk factors for dementia (OR: 1.057, P=0.011; OR: 2.197, P=0.040). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was a risk factor for MCI (OR: 1.635, P=0.047), while age at T2DM onset and moderate drinking were protective factors for MCI (OR: 0.936, P=0.044; OR: 0.289, P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: MCI is common in T2DM patients. Waist circumference and DR are risk factors of dementia, LDL-C is a risk factor for MCI, and moderate drinking and age at T2DM onset are protective factors for MCI. DR is unrelated to MCI in T2DM.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.273 · 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