Brain deficits in prediabetic adults: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous findings on the relationship between prediabetes (the precursor stage of type 2 diabetes) and brain health in humans are inconsistent. Thus, this systematic review of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies aimed to summarize what is currently known about brain deficits in prediabetic adults. Following the PRISMA reporting standards for systematic reviews, we conducted a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed journal articles published from 2009 to present, focusing on studies that assessed brain volume, structural connectivity, and cerebrovascular health in prediabetic adults and older adults (i.e., 18 years or older). We systematically searched PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMbase databases. Quality assessment was based on the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational and Cross-sectional Studies. In total, 19 studies were included in our review. Results from these studies show that prediabetes may be associated with deficits in brain structure and pathology, however, several studies also refute these findings. Moreover, we identified clear inconsistencies in study methodologies, including diabetes measures and classification, across studies that may account for these conflicting findings.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.420 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".