MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153920363

Understanding Cognitive Function In Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus via Environmental Stress in the Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Environment and Metabolic Stress Associated with Glucose Ingestion

2011· dissertation· en· W3153920363 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Tupur Rahman

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2011
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes mellitusMedicineStress (linguistics)Functional magnetic resonance imagingIngestionCognitionEnvironmental stressType 2 diabetesInternal medicineEndocrinologyPsychiatryBiologyRadiologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives were to explore cognitive function in older adults with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) through two studies: 1) a pilot study involving the metabolic stress of glucose ingestion and the environmental stress of a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) environment and 2) an fMRI study exploring the neural mechanisms through hippocampal and prefrontal functional imaging during memory and executive functioning tasks. In T2DM subjects, environmental stress produced greater impairment in memory performance and metabolic stress produced overestimation of memory performance, with similar executive functioning, relative to healthy subjects (pilot study). T2DM subjects also sowed reduced hippocampal and greater prefrontal activation compared to healthy subjects (fMRI study). Moreover, the metabolic stress caused greater hippocampal and prefrontal activation in healthy subjects relative to placebo (fMRI study). These results indicate plausible neural mechanisms behind T2DM- and stress-associated cognitive impairments that can be used for future improvements in cognitive retention and rehabilitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207