Investigating the Relationship Between Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 and Cognition in Normoglycemia, Prediabetes, and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and cognition has not been studied extensively with regards to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We examined the association between IGF-1 and cognition across different diabetes status using the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study. Normoglycemia, prediabetes, and T2DM was defined using a self-report of diabetes diagnosis, glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and antidiabetic medication use. Among 583 normoglycemic (48.4% female, 51.0±12.2 years old), 512 prediabetes (58.4% female, 57.3±11.8 years old), and 305 T2DM participants (53.8% female, 57.6±11.5 years old), IGF-1 concentrations were associated with better executive performance in individuals with prediabetes (β=0.115 [0.028, 0.202], p=0.010), particularly in males (β=0.251 [0.123, 0.380], p<0.001), but not in normoglycemia or T2DM. No associations were seen between IGF-1 and memory. The results suggest that peripheral IGF-1 concentrations may be related to executive function, and that the relationship may be sex-specific and dependent on diabetes status.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".