MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patterns of Regional Brain Atrophy and Brain Aging in Middle- and Older-Aged Adults With Type 1 Diabetes

2023· article· en· W4378953128 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamad Habes, Alan M. Jacobson, Barbara H. Braffett, Tanweer Rashid, Christopher M. Ryan, Haochang Shou, Yuhan Cui, Christos Davatzikos, José A. Luchsinger, Geert Jan Biessels, Ionut Bebu, Rose Gubitosi‐Klug, R. Nick Bryan, Ilya M. Nasrallah

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Network Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsType 1 diabetesMedicineMemory spanAtrophyWechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleDiabetes mellitusNeuroimagingCohortBrain sizeEpidemiologyPsychologyPediatricsAudiologyMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineCognitionPsychiatryWorking memoryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Little is known about structural brain changes in type 1 diabetes (T1D) and whether there are early manifestations of a neurodegenerative condition like Alzheimer disease (AD) or evidence of premature brain aging. Objective: To evaluate neuroimaging markers of brain age and AD-like atrophy in participants with T1D in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT)/Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, identify which brain regions are associated with the greatest changes in patients with T1D, and assess the association between cognition and brain aging indices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study leveraged data collected during the combined DCCT (randomized clinical trial, 1983-1993) and EDIC (observational study, 1994 to present) studies at 27 clinical centers in the US and Canada. A total of 416 eligible EDIC participants and 99 demographically similar adults without diabetes were enrolled in the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) ancillary study, which reports cross-sectional data collected in 2018 to 2019 and relates it to factors measured longitudinally in DCCT/EDIC. Data analyses were performed between July 2020 and April 2022. Exposure: T1D diagnosis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Psychomotor and mental efficiency were evaluated using verbal fluency, digit symbol substitution test, trail making part B, and the grooved pegboard. Immediate memory scores were derived from the logical memory subtest of the Wechsler memory scale and the Wechsler digit symbol substitution test. MRI and machine learning indices were calculated to predict brain age and quantify AD-like atrophy. Results: This study included 416 EDIC participants with a median (range) age of 60 (44-74) years (87 of 416 [21%] were older than 65 years) and a median (range) diabetes duration of 37 (30-51) years. EDIC participants had consistently higher brain age values compared with controls without diabetes, indicative of approximately 6 additional years of brain aging (EDIC participants: β, 6.16; SE, 0.71; control participants: β, 1.04; SE, 0.04; P < .001). In contrast, AD regional atrophy was comparable between the 2 groups. Regions with atrophy in EDIC participants vs controls were observed mainly in the bilateral thalamus and putamen. Greater brain age was associated with lower psychomotor and mental efficiency among EDIC participants (β, -0.04; SE, 0.01; P < .001), but not among controls. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest an increase in brain aging among individuals with T1D without any early signs of AD-related neurodegeneration. These increases were associated with reduced cognitive performance, but overall, the abnormal patterns seen in this sample were modest, even after a mean of 38 years with T1D.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA Network OpenSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207