MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387472811 · doi:10.1080/13854046.2023.2266876

Utility of the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery in middle to older aged adults with longstanding type 1 diabetes: The DCCT/EDIC study

2023· article· en· W4387472811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Naomi Chaytor, Victoria R. Trapani, Barbara H. Braffett, Luciana Mascarenhas Fonseca, Gayle M. Lorenzi, Rose Gubitosi‐Klug, Susan Hitt, Kaleigh Farrell, Alan M. Jacobson, Christopher M. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Clinical Neuropsychologist · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Eye Institute
KeywordsType 1 diabetesToolboxCognitionGerontologyBattery (electricity)MedicineDiabetes mellitusPsychologyPsychiatryComputer scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) face an increased risk for cognitive decline and dementia. Diabetes-related and vascular risk factors have been linked to cognitive decline using detailed neuropsychological testing; however, it is unclear if cognitive screening batteries can detect cognitive changes associated with aging in T1D. Method: 1,049 participants with T1D (median age 59 years; range 43–74) from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), and the follow-up Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, completed the NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (NIHTB-C) and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Neuropsychological assessments, depression, glycated hemoglobin levels (HbA1c), severe hypoglycemia, T1D complications, and vascular risk factors were assessed repeatedly over 32 years to determine associations with current NIHTB-C performance. Available cognitive data was clinically adjudicated to determine cognitive impairment status. Results: NIHTB-C scores had moderate associations (r = 0.36–0.53) with concurrently administered neuropsychological tests. In multivariate models, prior severe hypoglycemic episodes, depression symptoms, nephropathy, lower BMI, and higher HbA1c and LDL cholesterol were associated with poorer NIHTB-C Fluid Cognition Composite scores. The NIHTB-C adequately detected adjudicated cognitive impairment (Area Under the Curve = 0.86; optimal cut score ≤90). The MoCA performed similarly (Area Under the Curve = 0.83; optimal cut score ≤25). Conclusions: The NIHTB-C is sensitive to the cognitive effects of diabetes-related and vascular risk factors, correlated with neuropsychological testing, and accurately detects adjudicated cognitive impairment. These data support its use as a screening test in middle to older aged adults with T1D to determine if referral for detailed neuropsychological assessment is needed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Clinical NeuropsychologistSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207