Relation between Exogenous Insulin and Cognitive Function in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Although the role of insulin in the periphery is well understood, not as much is known about its multifactorial role in the brain. The aim of this study is to determine whether exogenous insulin, evaluated by daily insulin requirement, has an impact on mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and whether this relationship is mediated by insulin doses and other risk factors. Materials and methods: A sample of 100 participants with type 2 diabetes aged 40 and over was divided into case and control groups, according to their insulin requirement. Patients with an insulin requirement >1 IU/kg/day were assessed as the case group whereas those with an insulin dose <1 IU/kg were used as the control group. All participants underwent cognitive testing using MoCA questionnaire scoring and blood analysis to determine lipid and uric acid levels in plasma. Subjects were categorized as having normal cognitive function or MCI. Results: Results showed that the prevalence of MCI in Lithuanian elderly diabetic patients was high in the groups with a normal insulin requirement or high insulin requirement at 84.8% and 72.5%, respectively (p = 0.14). Age (p = 0.001) and insulin dose (p < 0.0001) were related to the MCI. Using ROC curve analysis, the highest rate risk of MCI occurred when the insulin dose was lower than 144 IU/d. Conclusions: In summary, the results of this study provided evidence that increased exogenous insulin supply improves cognitive function. Higher insulin dose (>144 IU/d) demonstrated a positive effect on cognitive function, especially in individuals with poorly controlled diabetes (HbA1c ≥ 9%). Finally, the prevalence of MCI in the T2DM population was found to be very high. Future research is needed to determine whether high exogenous insulin doses have a protective effect on MCI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".