MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307844012 · doi:10.1097/wad.0000000000000534

MoCA Intraindividual Cognitive Variability in Older Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

2022· article· en· W4307844012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luciana Mascarenhas Fonseca, David P. Sheppard, Naomi Chaytor

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer Disease & Associated Disorders · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMontreal Cognitive AssessmentDementiaOdds ratioNeuropsychologyCognitionMedicineType 2 diabetesGerontologyDiabetes mellitusPsychologyInternal medicineDiseasePsychiatryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer Disease & Associated DisordersSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207