Physio-cognitive decline syndrome among middle-aged diabetes patients: Handgrip strength significantly correlates with glycaemic control and cognitive score
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims To investigate the correlation between glycaemic control with component of Physio-Cognitive Decline Syndrome (PCDS) and among each component of PCDS itself. Methods A cross sectional study was conducted (January 2021–November 2022) at Dr. Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, Jakarta, Indonesia on consecutively recruited T2DM outpatients aged 40–59 years old. Data on the latest three months HbA1c, hand grip strength (HGS), usual gait speed (GS), and Indonesian Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA-Ina) were evaluated. Pearson or Spearman's test was used to analysis the correlations. Results There were 133 subjects with median age 53 (40–59) years. The PCDS was found in 48.1 % subjects, of which 64.1 % with uncontrolled glycaemia. Significant correlations were found between HGS and HbA1c (r = −0.24, R 2 = 0.06, p < 0.01) and MoCA-Ina score (r = 0.21, R 2 = 0.04, p < 0.05). Conclusion The higher HbA1c and the lower MoCA-Ina score, the weaker handgrip strength was.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".