MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176243451 · doi:10.1111/jdi.13622

Voxel‐based specific regional analysis system for Alzheimer’s disease utility as a screening tool for unrecognized cognitive dysfunction of elderly patients in diabetes outpatient clinics: Multicenter retrospective exploratory study

2021· article· en· W3176243451 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Y Ueba, Takaaki Murakami, Taizo Yamamoto, Akira Kuroe, Masahide Yamasaki, Daita Kaneda, Daisuke Otani, Sakura Kiyobayashi, Kaori Ikeda, Daisuke Yabe, Masahito Ogura, Nobuya Inagaki

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Investigation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaClinical Dementia RatingDiabetes mellitusOutpatient clinicMontreal Cognitive AssessmentCognitionRetrospective cohort studyDiseaseMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicinePediatricsPhysical therapyPsychiatryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS/INTRODUCTION: An efficient screening strategy for identification of cognitive dysfunction remains a clinical issue in the management of elderly adults with diabetes. A magnetic resonance imaging voxel-based specific regional analysis system for Alzheimer's disease (VSRAD) has been developed as an automated brain morphometry system that includes the hippocampus. We carried out a multicenter retrospective study to evaluate the utility of VSRAD for screening cognitive dysfunction in diabetes outpatient clinics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We enrolled patients with diabetes aged >65 years who underwent brain magnetic resonance imaging scans for the purpose of a medical checkup between November 2018 and May 2019. Patients who were already suspected or diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment and/or dementia as well as those with a history of cerebrovascular disease were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were enrolled. Five patients were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment or dementia (clinical cognitive dysfunction). Patients with clinical cognitive dysfunction showed a significantly higher z-score in VSRAD analysis (2.57 ± 0.47 vs 1.15 ± 0.55, P < 0.01). The sensitivities and specificities for diagnosis of clinical cognitive dysfunction were 80 and 48% for the Mini-Mental State Examination, 100 and 89% for the z-score, and 100 and 90% for the combination of the Mini-Mental State Examination score and z-score, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: VSRAD analysis can distinguish patients with clinical cognitive dysfunction in the elderly with diabetes, and also shows reasonable sensitivity and specificity compared with the Mini-Mental State Examination alone. Thus, VSRAD analysis can be useful for early identification of clinical cognitive dysfunction in the elderly with diabetes.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.850

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes InvestigationSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207