Cognitive Dysfunction of Pregnant Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Perinatal Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To explore whether pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) had cognitive impairment and assess cognitive function in normal pregnant women. Methods. A total of 75 consecutive women diagnosed with GDM (GDM group), 70 normal pregnant women (NP group) without diabetes and matched for age, and 51 female volunteers (CG group) with the similar age level, normal blood glucose, and nonpregnancy were included in the study. For the assessment of cognitive functions, Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was performed. Venous blood samples were collected to measure blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), methylglyoxal (MGO), beta amyloid (Aβ), and tau protein. Results. The score of MoCA of GDM was lowest, and the score of the NP group was lower than volunteers ( P < 0.05 ). The incidence of cognitive dysfunction increased significantly in the GDM group with statistical significance ( P < 0.05 ). The levels of tau and MGO in the GDM group were significantly less than those in the NP and CG groups, and Aβ in the GDM group was significantly more than that in the NP and CG groups ( P < 0.05 ), but the differences between NP and CG groups were not statistically significant ( P < 0.05 ). Conclusion. The pregnant women with GDM showed a significant decline in cognitive function, and the normal pregnant women also showed a decline in cognitive function which is very light.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".