MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pretest and post test values of MoCA in Group A and B in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus subjects

2025· dataset· en· W6920985219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionMontreal Cognitive AssessmentType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesTrail Making TestCognitive testAerobic exercise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes Mellitus (DM) is a chronic metabolic disorder characterized by hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, and impaired insulin secretion. Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is not only a metabolic disorder but is also associated with an increased risk of cognitive dysfunction, affecting memory, attention, and executive functions. Cognitive Motor Dual Task Training (CMDTT) is designed to engage multiple procedural memory centers in the brain, including the basal ganglia, cerebellum, supplementary motor area, and premotor cortex, thereby enhancing both cognition and motor function.This randomized controlled study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of CMDTT in improving cognitive function among individuals with T2DM. A total of 62 participants with T2DM were assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) scale before and after the intervention. The experimental group (n=31) performed CMDTT along with aerobic training, while the control group (n=31) underwent conventional therapy comprising aerobic and resisted exercises. The findings demonstrated a significant improvement in cognitive function in the experimental group, with a statistically significant difference compared to the control group (p=0.0001). The study concludes that CMDTT is a more effective approach in enhancing cognitive function in individuals with 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 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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207