Cognitive impairment in older adults with DM and HBP in a primary care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: We conducted a cross-sectional study to identify, characterize, and compare the presence of cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and patients with high blood pressure (HBP) who were seen in primary care. Methods: Consecutive patients over the age of 65 with DM or HBP who attended outpatient consultation at the Family Medicine Unit No. 51 of the Mexican Institute of Social Security in Guadalajara were included in the study. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test was applied to detect the presence of cognitive impairment. Results: A total of 177 patients (59.9% men) with DM (59.9%) or HBP (40.1%) were included in the study. It was found that 44.1% of the participants had cognitive impairment. Conclusions: The prevalence of cognitive impairment in older adults with DM or HBP is higher than in older adults without these comorbidities. The use of a quick and easy screening test such as the MoCA test in this group of patients could allow for early detection and impact on timely referral, approach, and management.
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".