MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996834966

Study of cognitive functions in elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus

2024· dissertation· en· W6996834966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic scientific archive of UrFU (Ural Federal University) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCognitionRelevance (law)Type 2 Diabetes MellitusEmpirical researchObject (grammar)Elderly peopleSubject (documents)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The object of study of this work is the cognitive functions of elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The subject of this work is the relationship between diabetes mellitus and cognitive functions of elderly people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The master's thesis consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a list of references and two appendices. The introduction reveals the relevance of the research problem, the development of the problem, sets the goal and objectives of the research, defines the object and subject of the research, formulates the main and additional hypotheses, indicates the methods and empirical basis, as well as the stages of the research, scientific novelty, theoretical and practical significance of the work. The first chapter includes a review of foreign and domestic literature on the topic of cognitive functions in older people. Sections devoted to the study of the effect of type 2 diabetes mellitus on cognitive decline in older people are presented. Conclusions for the first chapter represent the results of the study of theoretical material. The second chapter is devoted to the empirical part of the study. It provides a description of the organization and methods of the study and the results obtained from all methods used: the Montreal Cognitive Function Assessment Scale and the author's questionnaire. The chapter also presents an analysis of the research results. The conclusions of Chapter 2 include the main results of the empirical study. In conclusion, the results of the theoretical and empirical parts of the work are summarized, as well as conclusions on the hypotheses put forward, the practical significance of the study is substantiated and possible prospects for further development of this issue are described.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronic scientific archive of UrFU (Ural Federal University)Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchFrench-language works237,207