Mild Cognitive Impairment among Type II Diabetes Mellitus Patients Attending University Teaching Hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Type II diabetes mellitus (TIIDM) has been associated with structural and functional changes in the brain. TIIDM is commonly associated with obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, all of which can have negative impact on brain. AIM: The aim of the study was to study the risk of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) among both diabetics and non-diabetics and to identify risk factors to MCI among both groups. METHODS: Two comparative cross-sectional studies were carried out enrolling 100 diabetics and 100 age, sex, and education matching non-diabetics. Cognitive function was assessed using Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test and risk factors for MCI were assessed. RESULTS: The subjective complaint of memory impairment among diabetics was significantly higher (34%) compared to non-diabetics (13.0%), p < 0.05. The mean of objective MoCA score was significantly lower among diabetics (25.9 ± 2.5) compared to non-diabetics (27.4 ± 2.4), p < 0.001. The rate of MCI was significantly higher among TIIDM patients (22%) compared to non-diabetics (9%), p < 0.01 and odds ratio (OR) 2.8 (95% confidence interval 1.2–6.5). Among the two studied groups, the rate of MCI was significantly higher among those aged over 50 years compared to younger age as well as among hypertensive compared to non-hypertensive persons, (p < 0.05). Among diabetics, the MCI was significantly higher among those with secondary education, having heart diseases, longer duration of DM, or repeated hypoglycemia attack, p < 0.05. A healthy diet, brain training, and social activities were found to be significantly associated with normal cognition. Logistic analysis revealed that diabetics aged above 50 was the only significant predicting factor for MCI with an OR 2.9 (95% CI: 3.8–123.3), p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: TIIDM is significantly associated with 3-times increasing risk of having MCI compared to non-diabetics. The age, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, duration of diabetes, and frequency of hypoglycemic episodes are risk factors for cognitive impairment. A healthy diet, brain training, and social activities were associated with better cognitive function.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".