MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281631445 · doi:10.2337/db22-616-p

616-P: Self-Care Scores Predicting Cognition Status in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes

2022· article· en· W4281631445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
SARAH E. CHOI, Matthew Freeby, BHASWATI ROY, Mary A. Woo, MARY-LYNN BRECHT

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentLogistic regressionMedicineArea under the curveDiabetes mellitusCognitionType 2 diabetesCovariateInternal medicineGerontologyCognitive impairmentDemographyPsychiatryStatisticsMathematicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive impairment is common in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and negatively impacts effective diabetes self-care. However, it is unclear whether self-care level can predict cognition status in T2DM patients. We aimed to identify self-care scores that would provide information on the patients’ cognition status. Methods: We collected diabetes self-care and cognition data from 50 T2DM patients (age 55.9±7.6 years, diabetes duration 10.1±8.2 years, A1C 7.1±1.4%, 54% female) using the Scale for Summary of Diabetes Self-Care Activities Assessment (SDSCA) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) . A mixed effects logistic regression model for repeated measures used both baseline and 6 months follow-up observations with adjustment for within-subject correlation (SAS GLMMIX) . First, from nine potential covariates, an iterative backward elimination process selected a parsimonious subset of covariates for predicting MoCA level (normal vs. impairment) , optimizing area under the curve (AUC) . Four covariates were identified (education, income, ethnicity, sleep quality; AUC=.75) . Then an iterative process calculated AUC for MoCA level predicted from self-care level, using each possible self-care score cut point from .to 6.95 in .increments, controlling for the four identified covariates. An optimal cut point was selected that produced the highest AUC value. Results: The optimal self-care cut point was 2.95 (AUC=.76) , producing good discrimination of MoCA level. As a sensitivity analysis, the second best cut point of 3.95 produced AUC=.75. Conclusion: Self-care cut points, accounting for education, income, ethnicity, and sleep quality, could be used to gain information on T2DM patients’ cognition status, which may prompt clinicians and researchers to further evaluation with formal cognitive tests. Disclosure S.E.Choi: None. M.Freeby: Research Support; Abbott Diabetes, Novo Nordisk. B.Roy: None. M.A.Woo: None. R.Kumar: None. M.Brecht: None. Funding National Institutes of Health (RNR017190)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicNeurological Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207