Investigating cognition in people with diabetes-related foot ulcers: a study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim Diabetes is associated with cognitive changes; however, it is unclear whether cognitive changes differ between those with diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFUs), or those with only diabetes-related lower extremity complications (DRLECs) that are risk factors for DFUs.Therefore, it is hypothesised that cognitive changes in people with diabetes are further influenced by the presence of DFU or DRLECs.Hence, this study aims to investigate cognition in people with a DFU compared to those with DRLECs.Secondary aims include investigating cognition over time in people with DFUs, and in those with DFUs who do and don't heal.Methods A case control study nested in a longitudinal study will recruit 136 participants -68 with type 2 diabetes with DFUs (cases) and 68 with DRLECs (controls).Global cognition will be measured using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test.The 68 cases will be followed up for 12 weeks to investigate cognition outcomes as well as to determine DFU healing. ResultsThe findings of this study will provide new evidence on whether cognition is further influenced by the presence of a DFU or by other DRLECs. ConclusionThese findings may be important to early detect cognitive changes in people with type 2 diabetes with DFUs or DRLECs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.007 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".