Sex differences in risk factors for cognitive decline and dementia, including death as a competing risk, in individuals with diabetes: Results from the <scp>ADVANCE</scp> trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To estimate the associations between risk factors and cognitive decline (CD)/dementia, and the sex differences in these risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes, while accounting for the competing risk of death. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial of 11,140 individuals with type 2 diabetes was used to estimate the odds of CD/dementia using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS: During a median 5-year follow-up, 1827 participants (43.2% women) had CD/dementia (1718 with CD only; 21 with dementia only; 88 with CD and dementia), and 929 (31.0% women) died without CD/dementia. Women had lower odds of CD/dementia than men (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval], 0.88 [0.77, 1.00]); older age, higher total cholesterol, HbA1c, waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio, moderately increased albumin-creatinine ratio, stroke/transient ischaemic attack and retinal disease were each associated with greater odds of CD/dementia; higher years at education completion, baseline cognitive function, taller stature and current alcohol use were inversely associated. Higher waist circumference (women-to-men ratio of ORs [ROR], 1.05 [1.00, 1.10] per 5 cm) and presence of anxiety/depression (ROR, 1.28 [1.01, 1.63]) were associated with greater ORs for CD/dementia in women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Several risk factors were associated with CD/dementia. Higher waist circumference and mental health symptoms were more strongly associated with CD/dementia in women than men. Further studies should examine the mechanisms that underlie these sex differences.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".