COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT IN ADULTS WITH DIABETES, HYPERTENSION AND OBESITY IN PRIMARY CARE.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: Identificar el deterioro cognitivo en adultos del primer nivel de atención de la UMF 64, Córdoba, Veracruz con diabetes, hipertensión y obesidad. Material y método: Se realizó un estudio transversal, descriptivo, observacional en pacientes de 40 a 59 años de edad a la Unidad de Medicina Familiar No. 64 de Córdoba, Veracruz. Se incluyeron 282 pacientes derechohabientes con hipertensión arterial, diabetes mellitus tipo 2 y obesidad, se aplicó ́ la Evaluación Cognitiva Montreal (MoCA) y se incluyó ́ una sección para las características sociodemográficas para las variables de interés. Resultados: Se encontró que los pacientes con diabetes 62 (21.98%) presentaron un probable trastorno cognitivo, mientras que 31 (10.99%) se encontraron sin deterioro cognitivo. De los pacientes con hipertensión, se encontró que 57 (20.21%) presentaron probable trastorno cognitivo y 37 (13.12%) no presentaban deterioro cognitivo, mientras que los pacientes con obesidad 21 (7.44%) tienen un probable trastorno cognitivo y el 74 (26.24%) se encontraron dentro de lo normal. Conclusiones: El deterioro cognitivo de los adultos en estudio se relaciona con las variables edad, sexo, nivel educacional, hipertensión y presencia de diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".