Cognitive Impairment in People with Diabetes-Related Foot Ulceration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To determine whether there is an excess of cognitive impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes and foot ulceration. Methods: 55 patients with type 2 diabetes and foot ulcers attending Multidisciplinary Diabetes Foot Ulcer clinics (MDFU cohort) were compared with 56 patients with type 2 diabetes attending Complex Diabetes clinics (CDC cohort) using commonly used screening tests for cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MOCA)), as well as foot self-care, mood and health literacy. MMSE was also compared between the MDFU cohort and a historical community-based cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes (FDS2 cohort). Results: Median MMSE scores were the same in all three groups (28/30). Median MOCA scores did not differ between the MDFU and CDC cohorts (25/30). There were no significant differences in the percentages of patients with MMSE ≤ 24 or MOCA ≤ 25 between MDFU and CDC cohorts (3.6% versus 10.7%, p = 0.27 and 56.4% versus 51.8%, p = 0.71, respectively), findings that did not change after adjustment for age, sex, education, diabetes duration, and random blood glucose. Conclusions: Using conventionally applied instruments, patients with type 2 diabetes and foot ulceration have similar cognition compared with patients without, from either hospital-based clinic or community settings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".