Association of time in range with cognitive impairment in middle-aged type 2 diabetic patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the association of Time In Range (TIR) obtained from Blood Glucose Monitoring (BGM) with Cognitive Impairment (CI) inpatients with middle-aged Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) and further explored whether a TIR goal for T2DM in adults with > 70% possess a protective effect on cognitive function. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 274 inpatients with T2DM aged 40-64 years, who underwent seven-point BGM ( pre meals and 120 min post meals and at bedtime) were recruited in this cross-sectional study. TIR was defined as the percentage of blood glucose within the target range of 3.9-10.0mmol/L. Subjects were divided into Normal Cognitive Function (NCF) (n = 160) and CI (n = 114) groups according to the results of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). The association of TIR and other glycemic metrics, calculated from seven-point BGM data, with cognitive dysfunction was analyzed. RESULTS: The prevalence of CI was 41.6% in patients with middle-aged T2DM (median age 58 years). TIR was lower in CI group than in NCF group (28.6% vs. 42.9%, P = 0.004). The prevalence of CI decreased with ascending tertiles of TIR (p for trend < 0.05). Binary logistic regression analysis showed a significant association between TIR and CI (odds ratio [OR] = 0.84, p < 0.001) after adjusting for confounders (age, education, marital status, age at Diabetes Mellitus (DM) onset, cerebrovascular disease). Further adjustment of Standard Deviation (SD)(OR = 0.84, p = 0.001) or Coefficient of Variation (CV)(OR = 0.83, p < 0.001), TIR was still associated with CI. While a TIR goal of > 70% probably possessed independent protective effect on cognitive function (OR = 0.25, p = 0.001) after controlling for confounders above. CONCLUSIONS: TIR obtained from BGM was related to CI in middle-aged T2DM individuals and a TIR goal of > 70% probably possessed a protective effect on cognitive function for middle-aged T2DM .
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".