Association between prediabetes and cognitive function in Parkinson's disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It remains largely unknown whether prediabetes is related to cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease (PD). This study aimed to assess the association between prediabetes and cognitive function in PD patients. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 262 PD patients (age, 69.8 ± 10.3 years; Hoehn-Yahr stage, 2.3 ± 0.8) were classified into diabetes (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥6.5% or previously diagnosed, n = 76), prediabetes (5.7%-6.4%, n = 90), or diabetes free (≤5.6%, n = 96) groups. Cognitive function was measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test. RESULTS: Both the diabetes and prediabetes groups had significantly lower MoCA scores (17.0 ± 6.6 and 18.0 ± 6.1, respectively) than the diabetes free group (20.0 ± 5.7), even after adjusting for potential confounders (p = .002 and p = .008, respectively). In the combined group of prediabetes and diabetes free patients, higher HbA1c levels significantly correlated with lower MoCA scores (p = .031). There was a significant interaction of diabetes status with age, but not with the duration of PD, on cognitive function. CONCLUSION: In addition to diabetes, prediabetes may negatively affect cognitive function in PD patients. Further prospective longitudinal studies are necessary to clarify the impact of prediabetes on the cognitive trajectory of these patients.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it