MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004842751 · doi:10.37358/rc.18.12.6775

Correlation of Glycemic and Lipid Control Parameters with Cognitive Dysfunction Scores, in Type 2 Diabetic Persons Results from a cross- sectional study

2019· article· en· W3004842751 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gina Botnariu, Alina Delia Popa, Geta Mitrea, Marius Manole, Mariana Păcurar, Mariana Anghele, Cecilia Curis, Elina Teodorescu

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Chimie · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycated hemoglobinGlycemicMedicineType 2 diabetesInternal medicineDementiaBody mass indexDiabetes mellitusMontreal Cognitive AssessmentEicosapentaenoic acidGlycemic indexCognitionCholesterolGerontologyEndocrinologyDiseasePolyunsaturated fatty acidPsychiatryFatty acidChemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes-related cognitive dysfunction is considered a long-term complication of diabetes. In this cross-sectional study was studied the relationship between cognitive dysfunction (assessed by using two standardized questionnaires), lipid profile parameters and fatty free acids intake, in outpatients, hospitalized for their periodical control. The Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE) and The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score were related to the body mass index (BMI), high density cholesterol (HDLc), glycated hemoglobin (Hb A1c) and intake of choline and eicosapentaenoic acid (all Ps [ .05, excepting the relationship between MMSE and HDLc). The implications of FFA intake in dementia development, in type 2 diabetics, is important for disease management and prevention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.262
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de ChimieSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207