MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416567573 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.71548

Prevalence and Predictors of Cognitive Decline Among Diabetes Mellitus Patients Attending Jinja Regional Referral Hospital: A Cross‐Sectional Study in Eastern Uganda

2025· article· en· W4416567573 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jasper Silver Makasi, Narayana Goruntla, Bhavana Reddy Bommireddy, Bhavani Mopuri, Vigneshwaran Easwaran, Mohammad Jaffar Sadiq Mantargi, Vishnuvandana Bandaru, Joseph Obiezu Chukwujekwu Ezeonwumelu, Tadele Mekuriya Yadesa

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusReferralCognitive declineAlcohol intakeRisk factorDiseaseObesityDuration (music)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Aims: The burden of cognitive impairment (CI) is high in diabetes mellitus. CI can adversely affect the self-care and management of diabetes, which results in an increase in the risk of hypo- or hyperglycaemic events and diabetic complications. The study aimed to determine the prevalence and predictors of CI in diabetic patients. Methods: A hospital-based, cross-sectional study was conducted among diabetic patients who were attending Jinja Regional Referral Hospital (JRRH), Eastern Uganda, from April to June 2024. A pre-designed data collection tool was used to capture socio-demographics and clinic profiles of the participants. A Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), version 8.1, was used to assess the CI (score: ≥ 26 = normal, < 26 = cognitive impairment) in diabetic patients. We used a binary and multiple logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of CI in diabetes. Results: The prevalence of CI among diabetic patients was 63.11% (95% CI: 58.3-67.9), and it was high among Type II diabetic patients (66.96%). Most of the patients have mild CI (73.77%). Delayed recall (78.96%) and language (73.77%) cognitive domains were greatly affected. Variables like advanced age (AOR = 6.08; 95% CI = 2.05-18.03), education (Illiterate: AOR = 5.90; 95% CI = 2.16-16.14; primary: AOR = 17.07; 95% CI = 5.64-51.71), alcohol use (AOR = 2.56; 95% CI = 1.22-5.37), no physical activity (AOR = 5.24; 95% CI = 2.52-10.91), type II diabetes (AOR = 7.02; 95% CI = 2.17-22.64), duration of diabetes (5-10 years: AOR = 14.09; 95% CI = 5.75-34.55; > 10 years: AOR = 78.80; 95% CI = 23.79-260.95), uncontrolled blood glucose (AOR = 5.13; 95% CI = 1.91-13.83), hypertension (AOR = 5.26; 95% CI = 2.08-13.34), and diabetic complications (AOR = 4.30; 95% CI = 1.38-13.36) were significantly associated with CI among diabetic patients. Conclusion: The study concludes that more than half of the diabetic patients had CI. Factors such as age, education, alcohol use, physical activity, diabetes type, duration of diabetes, glycaemic control, hypertension, and diabetic complications were significantly associated with CI in diabetes. Therefore, the study recommends planning and implementing management strategies that focus on predictors of CI in diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueHealth Science ReportsSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207