4 Associations Between Glycemia and Cognitive Performance in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) using Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) and Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite associations between hypoglycemia and cognitive performance using cross-sectional and experimental methods (e.g., Insulin clamp studies), few studies have evaluated this relationship in a naturalistic setting. This pilot study utilizes an EMA study design in adults with T1D to examine the impact of hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, measured using CGM, on cognitive performance, measured via ambulatory assessment. Participants and Methods: Twenty adults with T1D (mean age 38.9 years, range 26-67; 55% female; 55% bachelor’s degree or higher; mean HbA1c = 8.3%, range 5.4% - 12.5%), were recruited from the Joslin Diabetes Center at SUNY Upstate Medical University. A blinded Dexcom G6 CGM was worn during everyday activities while completing 3-6 daily EMAs using personal smartphones. EMAs were delivered between 9 am and 9 pm, for 15 days. EMAs included 3 brief cognitive tests developed by testmybrain.org and validated for brief mobile administration (Gradual Onset CPT d-prime, Digit Symbol Matching median reaction time, Multiple Object Tracking percent accuracy) and self-reported momentary negative affect. Day-level average scores were calculated for the cognitive and negative affect measures. Hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia were defined as the percentage of time spent with a sensor glucose value <70 mg/dL or > 180 mg/dL, respectively. Daytime (8 am to 9 pm) and nighttime (9 pm to 8 am) glycemic excursions were calculated separately. Multilevel models estimated the between- and within-person association between the night prior to, or the same day, time spent in hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and cognitive performance (each cognitive test was modeled separately). To evaluate the effect of between-person differences, person-level variables were calculated as the mean across the study and grand-mean centered. To evaluate the effect of within-person fluctuations, day-level variables were calculated as deviations from these person-level means. Results: Within-person fluctuations in nighttime hypoglycemia were associated with daytime processing speed. Specifically, participants who spent a higher percentage of time in hypoglycemia than their average percentage the night prior to assessment performed slower than their average performance on the processing speed test (Digit Symbol Matching median reaction time, b = 94.16, p = 0.042), while same day variation in hypoglycemia was not associated with variation in Digit Symbol Matching performance. This association remained significant (b = 97.46, p = 0.037) after controlling for within-person and between-person effects of negative affect. There were no significant within-person associations between time spent in hyperglycemia and Digit Symbol Matching, nor day/night hypoglycemia or hyperglycemia and Gradual Onset CPT or Multiple Object Tracking. Conclusions: Our findings from this EMA study suggest that when individuals with T1D experience more time in hypoglycemia at night (compared to their average), they have slower processing speed the following day, while same day hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia does not similarly impact processing speed performance. These results showcase the power of intensive longitudinal designs using ambulatory cognitive assessment to uncover novel determinants of cognitive variation in real world settings that have direct clinical applications for optimizing cognitive performance. Future research with larger samples is needed to replicate these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".