MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411292198 · doi:10.2337/db25-1271-p

1271-P: Longitudinal Predictors of Cognitive Impairment in Older Adults with Type 2 Diabetes—A Systematic Review

2025· article· en· W4411292198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Min Jung Kim, Bohyun Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitive impairmentDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesGerontologyCognitionMedicineClinical psychologyPsychologyPsychiatryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Objective: Older adults with diabetes are at an increased risk of cognitive impairment (CI). Those with diabetes may experience distinct biological, psychological, interpersonal, and behavioral risk factors for CI compared to those without diabetes. However, current preventive strategies often do not address disease-specific factors, and their effectiveness remains uncertain. This review aimed to summarize the longitudinal predictors of CI in older adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and to identify those at higher risk. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library in December 2024. Two reviewers screened records for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Findings were synthesized narratively. Results: A total of 35 longitudinal studies were included in the synthesis. Sample sizes ranged from 55 to 2,032,689, and mean follow-up periods ranged from 2.5 to 14.7 years, when reported. In total, 25 biological, 7 behavioral, and 1 interpersonal predictor were identified. Biological predictors included blood/urine biomarkers (14), physical biomarkers (3), overall physical conditions (3), diabetes-specific conditions/status (3), and one genetic biomarker. Behavioral predictors included smoking, alcohol use, diet/nutrients, physical activity, and sleep. Social contact was the sole interpersonal predictor. No psychological predictors were reported. Except for the genetic biomarker, most predictors were modifiable. Conclusion: Given the absence of a cure for CI, identifying those at heightened risk and providing targeted preventive care are critical. Diabetes-specific factors should be integrated into the design of preventive strategies for older adults with T2DM to mitigate the risk of CI. Disclosure M. Kim: None. B. Kim: None. Funding Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (RS-2023-00250911)

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207