Relationship between Homeostatic Model Assessment for Insulin Resistance and Waist Hip Ratio with Cognitive Function in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Cognitive impairment is a common complication of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) in which the underlying mechanism are insulin resistance and associated central obesity. Homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) and waist-hip ratio (WHR) have been used as markers for insulin resistance and central obesity, respectively, but their direct association with cognition remains unclear. This study was conducted to determine the relationship between HOMA-IR and WHR with cognitive function in T2DM patients. Method: This was a correlative analytic study with a cross sectional design involving T2DM pateints. The HOMA-IR was assessed based on blood laboratory results, the WHR was measured by dividing circumference of the waist by the circumference of the hips and cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Indonesian Version (MoCA-INA). Results: : There were 56 patients included in the study. There was no significant relationship between HOMA-IR and cognitive function in T2DM patients (p=0.276; r=0.148). There was also no significant relationship between WHR and cognitive function (p = 0.499; r = 0.092). Conclusion: The HOMA-IR and WHR were not correlated with cognitive function in 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".