Assessment of cognitive function using the Montreal cognitive assessment test and its association with glycemic control in diabetes mellitus patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with decreased performance on cognitive domains. Diabetic patients have poor memory and attention. Cognitive dysfunction has emerged as significant morbidity of DM nowadays. Cognitive function can be screened rapidly by Montreal cognitive assessment test (MoCA). Aims and Objectives: The objective of this study was to study the effect of blood glucose levels and diabetic duration on MoCA score in diabetic patients. Materials and Methods: DM patients of both type 1(30) and type 2(30) from NCD clinic were selected as cases. Thirty persons with good health from master health checkup were selected as controls. Cognitive function was assessed in all the participants with MoCA after getting informed consent. Fasting and postprandial blood sugars were assessed with 2 mL of venous blood. Results: The mean MoCA score has decreased among diabetic cases than controls. Among cases, T1DM has decreased mean MoCA score than T2DM. Fasting blood sugar (FBS), post prandial blood sugar (PPBS), and diabetic duration were found to be correlated negatively with the score obtained in MoCA in controls and T1DM cases. In T2DM cases, FBS and PPBS were found to be correlated negatively with the score obtained in MoCA, but weak positive correlation was found between duration and MoCA score. Conclusion: Our study concludes an association between FBS, PPBS, and duration of diabetes with MoCA score in diabetic patients of both types. Strict glycemic control and regular screening for cognitive dysfunction can prevent dementia.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".