Cognitive protection of incretin‐based therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and meta‐analysis based on clinical studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS/INTRODUCTION: Cognitive dysfunction, including mild cognitive impairment and dementia, is increasingly recognized as an important complication of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The aims of the preset study was to investigate the cognitive protection of incretin-based therapies, including glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and PsycINFO were searched from the inception through 17 January 2023 for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies on the association between incretin-based therapies and cognitive function. A total of 15 studies were finally included in our systematic review, and eight of which were incorporated into our meta-analysis. RESULTS: Pooled results showed that the Mini-Mental State Examination score in incretin-based therapy groups was increased by 1.20 compared with the control group (weighted mean difference 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.39-2.01). The results of eight studies assessed by the Newcastle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool, and the quality of the eight studies were at a relatively high level. Egger's regression did not show significant publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows that incretin-based therapies might be more effective, when compared with the other hypoglycemic drugs, for cognitive improvement in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".