MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401982748 · doi:10.4103/ijnpnd.ijnpnd_44_22

Evaluation of Neurocognitive Disorder in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

2022· article· en· W4401982748 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
K Preetam, Nagesh Kumar Talkad Chandrashekar, Rashmi Krishnappa

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of Nutrition Pharmacology Neurological Diseases · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurocognitiveMedicineType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPsychiatryInternal medicineEndocrinologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a syndrome characterized by hyperglycemia due to absolute or relative deficiency of insulin or both. In India, an estimated 40 million people suffered from diabetes in 2007 and are expected to rise to 70 million by 2025 as per the Indian Diabetes Study 2011. Individuals with type 2 diabetes are at 60% greater risk for development of dementia compared to those without diabetes. For vascular dementia, but not for nonvascular dementia, the additional risk is that it is greater in women. Aim and Objective: To assess cognitive impairment among type 2 DM patients. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 67 patients with type 2 DM and 66 control attending Put patient department (OPD) services between October 2018 and September 2020 were included. Both these groups were scored on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). The scores ranged from zero to 30. The scores of ≥26 were considered normal. A score of ≤22.1 in these people was considered as mild cognitive. Categorical data were represented in the form of frequencies and proportions. Chi-square test or Fischer exact test were used as test of significance for qualitative data. Correlations were performed with Pearson correlation coefficient. The P -value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant after assuming all the rules of statistical tests. Results: Age and duration of diabetes had positive correlation with MoCA score which was not statistically significant. The body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference had negative correlation with MoCA score which was not statistically significant. Hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) had negative correlation with MoCA score which was statistically significant. Conclusion: Older individuals with longer duration of DM and higher HbA1c levels showed higher cognitive impairment with MoCA score correlation. This study also highlights the early screening for all DM patients with easily available MoCA scores. Thus, helping in early recognition of mild cognitive impairment and preventing it from proceeding to dementia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.341
Teacher spread0.316 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of Nutrition Pharmacology Neurological DiseasesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207