MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399614881 · doi:10.3389/frdem.2024.1418037

A systematic review of the impact of type 2 diabetes on brain cortical thickness

2024· review· en· W4399614881 on OpenAlexaff
Mahboubeh Motaghi, Olivier Potvin, Simon Duchesne

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Dementia · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 2 diabetesNeurosciencePsychologyMedicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) has been linked to cognitive impairment and dementia, but its impact on brain cortical structures in individuals prior to or without cognitive impairment remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of 2,331 entries investigating cerebral cortical thickness changes in T2D individuals without cognitive impairment, 55 of which met our inclusion criteria. Results: Most studies (45/55) reported cortical brain atrophy and reduced thickness in the anterior cingulate, temporal, and frontal lobes between T2D and otherwise cognitively healthy controls. However, the balance of studies (10/55) reported no significant differences in either cortical or total brain volumes. A few reports also noticed changes in the occipital cortex and its gyri. As part of the reports, less than half of studies (18/55) described a correlation between T2D and hippocampal atrophy. Variability in sample characteristics, imaging methods, and software could affect findings on T2D and cortical atrophy. Discussion: In conclusion, T2D appears linked to reduced cortical thickness, possibly impacting cognition and dementia risk. Microvascular disease and inflammation in T2D may also contribute to this risk. Further research is needed to understand the underlying mechanisms and brain health implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in DementiaSame topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207