BMI, weight change, appetite reduction and cognitive impairment of elderly patients with diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body weight is related to both diabetes and cognitive impairment; however, the associations between body mass index (BMI) and cognitive impairment have been reported less frequently among diabetes patients. A total of 1355 patients with type 2 diabetes aged ≥ 60 years were included in this study. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was administered to assess participants' cognitive status. We collected self-reported body weight, weight loss and appetite loss data using questionnaires. Associations between body weight status (in childhood, midlife age, and late life), weight loss, appetite changes and cognitive impairment were explored using logistic regression. Among the participants, 41.7% exhibited cognitive impairment. Overweight in childhood and late life was associated with cognitive impairment among diabetes patients (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.52-4.55; OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.03-1.69). Diabetes patients with cognitive impairment were more likely to report a body weight decline and appetite reduction in the past three months (OR 4.18, 95% CI 2.61-6.71; OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.67-7.29). Higher BMI, weight loss, and appetite reduction were positively correlated with cognitive impairment. Given the risk of cognitive impairment, we suggest that body weight and BMI decline should be monitored in patients with 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".