MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414696515 · doi:10.24875/rmu.25000002

Effect of adequate glycated hemoglobin glycemic control goals on cognitive function in older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

2025· article· en· W4414696515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rocío Morales-Delgado, Ana C. Muñoz-Díaz, P. Morales, Célica R. González-Galván, E.E. Abundis-Márquez, Neri Alejandro Álvarez‐Villalobos, Roxana D. Limón-Castillo, Sara G. Yeverino-Castro

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicina Universitaria · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicGlycated hemoglobinCognitionType 2 diabetesObservational studyType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes mellitus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review seeks to evaluate the influence of appropriate glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) glycemic control targets and their effect on cognitive function among older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A thorough search was conducted across six databases, focusing on observational studies that examined glycemic control and cognitive assessment in older adults. The primary outcome measured glycemic control through levels of HbA1c. The Mini-mental state examination and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment served as the primary tools for evaluating cognitive function. We included two cross-sectional studies (n = 1.390) and two cohorts (n = 2.236), all rated as high-quality evidence based on the Newcastle- Ottawa scale and AXIS scales. Higher HbA1c levels in patients aged 60 and older with T2DM are correlated with lower cognitive performance, indicating that poor glycemic control may contribute to cognitive decline.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.498

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designSystematic review
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 venueMedicina UniversitariaSame topicNeurological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207