Type 2 diabetes is associated with increased risk of dementia, but not mild cognitive impairment: a cross-sectional study among the elderly in Chinese communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have confirmed that diabetes is associated with cognitive impairment, but there is little data on this among older Chinese. Methods: This study included 192 dementia patients, 610 patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 2,218 normal controls. Their general demographic information (such as gender, age, education, etc.), disease-related information (hypertension), and diabetes information (such as whether you have diabetes, course of the disease, etc) were collected by standardized questionnaires. The mini-mental state examination (MMSE) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were used to assess their overall cognitive function, Moreover, 84 healthy, randomly selected older adults also underwent brain MRI scans at the same time, and the target brain regions included the hippocampus, the third, fourth, and fifth ventricles. Results: The proportion of type 2 diabetes was significantly higher in the dementia group (25.5%) than that in the normal elderly group (15.6%) and the MCI group (17.7%). By using stepwise multiple logistics regression analysis, we found that type 2 diabetes was associated with dementia (p = 0.005*, OR = 1.805, 95%CI: 1.199–2.761), but not with MCI (p > 0.05). The volume of the fourth ventricle of the healthy elderly with diabetes was significantly larger than that of the healthy elderly without diabetes (p < 0.05), but there was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in the volume of the hippocampus, the third ventricle, and the fifth ventricle between the two groups. However, we did not find an association between the fourth ventricle and cognitive scores (MMSE and MoCA). Conclusions: In conclusion, type 2 diabetes in elderly Chinese people is associated with dementia, but not MCI. Type 2 diabetes may impair cognitive function by affecting the volume of the fourth ventricle. However, larger longitudinal follow-up studies are needed to confirm these conclusions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".