MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE ROLE OF INSULIN THERAPY REGIMENS AND THE COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT

2017· other· en· W6927272288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulinDiabetes mellitusNeurocognitiveDiabetic ketoacidosisKetoacidosisType 2 Diabetes MellitusCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Type 1 diabetes mellitus is characterized by a high level of glucose in the blood, requires lifelong insulin therapy and can cause acute and chronic complications in various organs and systems, including neurocognitive dysfunction.The purpose: to study the role of the insulin therapy regimen in the development of cognitive impairment in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus.Materials and methods: 60 patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus were examined. All patients were divided into 2 groups: the 1st group received insulin with the help of multiple injections, the 2nd group - in the regime of pump insulin therapy. All patients underwent general clinical examination, testing of cognitive functions with the Montreal scale. The statistical analysis was carried out using the software package R-system.Results: the study revealed that in both groups with type 1 diabetes mellitus the decreased cognitive function was registered. It is shown that pump insulin therapy is associated with better performance of the tasks of the Montreal scale. In addition, it has been shown that more frequent episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis and high HbA1c are the main causes of cognitive impairment in this group of patients.Conclusion: cognitive disorders associated with acute and chronic hyperglycemia were verified in patients with type 1 diabetes. Pump insulin therapy improves cognitive functions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0030.005
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library)Same topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207