MoCA Intraindividual Cognitive Variability in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) may have an elevated risk of developing Alzheimer disease and related dementia. Higher intraindividual cognitive variability (IICV) has been proposed as a novel risk factor of Alzheimer disease and related dementia. Here, we examined the association between cross-domain IICV measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and cognitive impairment measured using traditional neuropsychological tests in older individuals with T1D. Participants with T1D (N=201) completed both the MoCA and a battery of traditional neuropsychological tests. Participants with cognitive impairment, determined using traditional tests, had significantly higher IICV scores and significantly lower total MoCA scores ( P <0.001). However, the effect of the total score was greater than that of the IICV score on the likelihood of cognitive impairment (total odds ratio=3.50, IICV odds ratio=2.03, P <0.001). The MoCA total score performed better than the MoCA IICV score in identifying T1D individuals classified with cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".