Association of mitochondrial DNA copy number with mild to moderate cognitive impairment and its mediating role in type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between mitochondrial DNA copy number (mtDNAcn) and cognitive dysfunction, and its mediating role between type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and cognitive dysfunction.MethodsA case-control study was conducted from May 2019 to April 2021 at the Shanghai Yangpu District Central Hospital, China. A total of 193 subjects were recruited and divided into two groups based on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA): normal control (NC) group (n=95) and cognitive impairment group (n=98). The prevalence of T2DM was determined on the basis of medical history, while mtDNAcn in peripheral blood samples was quantified using realtime fluorescent quantitative polymerase chain reaction.ResultsUnivariate analyses revealed that the mean mtDNAcn in the cognitive impairment group was 0.76±0.37, significantly lower than that in the NC group (1.06±0.45) (P<0.05). Logistic regression analyses showed that higher mtDNAcn was associated with a reduced risk of cognitive impairment (OR=0.315, 95%CI: 0.125‒0.795). Additionaly, a statistically significant positive correlation was observed between mtDNAcn and the total MoCA score (r=0.381, P<0.01). Morever, T2DM history (OR=2.741, 95%CI: 1.002‒7.497) and elevated glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels (OR=1.796, 95%CI: 1.190‒2.711) were identified as risk factors for cognitive impairment. Mediation analyses indicated that mtDNAcn served as a mediator between T2DM/HbA1c and the risk of cognitive impairment, with proportions of mediating effect of 9.04% and 9.18%, respectively.ConclusionPatients with mild and moderate cognitive impairment have significantly lower mtDNAcn than those with normal cognitive function. Reduced mtDNAcn is an influencing factor for cognitive dysfunction and may play a mediating role in the association between T2DM and mild to moderate cognitive impairment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".