MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318049643 · doi:10.3389/fnagi.2023.1126183

Relationship between glycemic control and cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4318049643 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Aging Neuroscience · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicMedicineMeta-analysisInternal medicineStrictly standardized mean differenceCochrane LibraryDiabetes mellitusPlaceboRandomized controlled trialCognitionCognitive declinePhysical therapyInsulinPsychiatryEndocrinologyDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Diabetes mellitus, or hyperglycemia, is an independent risk factor for cognitive impairment. Here we systematically analyzed whether glycemic control could improve cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM), hyperglycemia, or insulin resistance. Methods Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library) and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials analyzing the relationship between glycemic control and cognitive function assessments, published from database inception to June 2022. Patients in experimental groups were treated with antidiabetic drugs, while control groups were treated with a placebo or alternative antidiabetic drugs. Data analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3 and StataSE-64, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Thirteen studies comprising 19,314 participants were included. Analysis revealed that glycemic control significantly attenuated the degree of decline in cognitive function assessment scores (SMD = 0.15; 95% CI 0.05, 0.26; p < 0.00001), and funnel plots confirmed no publication bias. Seven studies used Mini-Mental State Examination as the primary cognitive function assessment, showing that glycemic control significantly delayed the degree of decline in cognitive function assessment scores (SMD = 0.18; 95% CI 0.03, 0.34; p = 0.02). Similar results were seen in two studies using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment scale, but without significant difference (SMD = 0.05; 95% CI-0.10, 0.21; p = 0.51). One study using Auditory Word Learning Test (AVLT) showed that glycemic control significantly delayed the decline in cognitive function assessment scores (SMD = 0.52; 95% CI 0.11,0.93; p = 0.01), and another used Wechsler Memory Scale Revised, showing similar results (SMD = 1.45; 95% CI 0.86, 2.04; p < 0.00001). Likewise, a study that used Modified Mini-Mental State scale showed that glycemic control significantly delayed the decline in cognitive function assessment scores (SMD = -0.10; 95% CI-0.16, −0.03; p = 0.005). Lastly, one study used AVLT subtests to show that glycemic control delayed the decline in cognitive function assessment scores, although not statistically significant (SMD = 0.09; 95% CI-0.53, 0.71; p = 0.78). Conclusion Glycemic control through antidiabetic treatment correlates with the improvement of cognitive impairment in patients with DM, hyperglycemia or insulin resistance. However, further studies are needed to validate the results of this study. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO , identifier CRD42022342260.

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 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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.210 · 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