MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7133070139

Differential effect of macronutrient ingestion on cognitive performance in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus

2007· dissertation· W7133070139 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jyotika Desai

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2007
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsIngestionEffects of sleep deprivation on cognitive performanceCognitionType 2 Diabetes MellitusHypercortisolemiaDiabetes mellitus
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ingestion of high glycemic-index carbohydrate foods results in cognitive deficits in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), yet the mechanisms remain unclear. This thesis distinguished between nutrient-induced increases in glucose, insulin, or cortisol as potential mediators of cognitive dysfunction using pure nutrient drinks differing in their impact on these parameters. On paragraph recall, mediated by the hippocampus, both glucose and protein ingestion resulted in poorer performance 20 to 100 minutes post ingestion in 30 adults with T2DM and these decrements associated with nutrient-induced increases in salivary cortisol. In contrast, protein ingestion enhanced performance on the executive components of Stroop and Trails, which associated with higher post-prandial insulin area under the curve. These results suggest that cognitive performance is not affected equally by nutrient-induced endocrine responses in adults with T2DM. Thus, acute hypercortisolemia may be detrimental to hippocampul-mediated tasks and executive function may be enhanced during periods of acute hyperinsulinemia.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.296 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace→Same topicRegulation of Appetite and Obesity→French-language works237,207→