Vascular comorbidity is associated with decreased cognitive functioning in inflammatory bowel disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Reports of cognitive impairment in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been mixed. IBD and cardiovascular disease are often co-morbid, yet it remains unknown whether vascular comorbidity confers a risk for decreased cognitive functioning, as observed in other populations. Methods: Participants with IBD were recruited from a longitudinal study of immune-mediated disease. Participants were administered a standardized neuropsychological test protocol, evaluating information processing speed, verbal learning and memory, visual learning and memory, and verbal fluency/executive function. Cognitive test scores were standardized using local regression-based norms, adjusting for age, sex, and education. Vascular risk was calculated using a modified Framingham Risk Score (FRS). We tested the association between FRS and cognitive test scores using a quantile regression model, adjusting for IBD type. Results: Of 84 IBD participants, 54 had ulcerative colitis and 30 had Crohn’s disease; mean (SD) age was 53.36 (13.95) years, and a high proportion were females (n = 58). As the risk score (FRS) increased, participants demonstrated lower performance in information processing speed (β=-0.12; 95% CI: -0.24, -0.006) and verbal learning (β=-0.14; 95% CI: -0.28, -0.01) at the 50th percentile. After adjusting for IBD type, higher FRS remained associated with lower information processing speed (β=-0.13; 95% CI: -0.24, -0.03). Conclusion: Vascular comorbidity is associated with lower cognitive functioning in persons with IBD, particularly in the areas of information processing speed and verbal learning. These findings suggest that prevention, identification, and treatment of vascular comorbidity in IBD may play a critical role for improving functional outcomes in IBD.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".