Variability of glycemia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes mellitus type 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diabetes mellitus type 1 is associated with impaired cognitive function. Based on the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyzes, the most likely modifiable risk factor is the degree of metabolic control, in particular the variability of glycemia. Aims: to determine the influence of the variability of glycemia on cognitive functions in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Material and methods. Design-observational, one-stage, cross-sectional research. We examined 30 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus who were divided into 2 groups: 1 group (main) with cognitive impairment, and 2 (control) with normal cognitive functions. All patients were screened for cognitive functions using the Montreal scale (MoCa test). For the diagnosis of fluctuations in glucose level, continuous monitoring of glycemia was carried out using the iPro-2 device (Medtronic, USA): mean glycemic mean (MEAN), standard deviation (SD), mean amplitude of glycemic fluctuation (MAGE), long-term glycemic index (CONGA) Glycemia lability index (LI), hypoglycemia risk index (LBGI), hyperglycemia risk index (HBGI), mean hourly rate of glycemic change (MAG). Results. The study revealed that in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus, cognitive impairment was dominated by a violation of constructive praxis, memory and attention. Recorded a significant difference in MEAN, SD, CONGA, Gindex, LBGI, HBGI, MAGE, Mvalue and MAG. Correlation analysis revealed the relationship of cognitive impairments with the level of HbA1c, as well as the variability parameters MEAN, SD, CONGA, Gindex, LBGI, HBGI, MAGE, Mvalue, MAG. Conclusions. The relationship between the variability of glycemia and cognitive impairment was registered in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".