ArticleJournal of diabetes research2025
Predicting Mild Cognitive Impairment in Type 2 Diabetes: A Machine Learning Approach.
Article in Journal of diabetes research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a diagnostic model for mild cognitive impairment in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and concomitant white matter hyperintensities.BMC neurology · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a prediction model for cognitive impairment in elderly patients with type 2 diabetes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetes significantly increases the risk of cognitive impairment, particularly mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Early identification of individuals at risk for MCI is crucial for timely intervention. This study was aimed at developing and validating a machine learning-based model to predict MCI in patients with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Methods: Participants with T2DM and completed cognitive assessments were included. Feature selection was done using statistical methods and genetic programming to reduce collinearity. Six classification models were trained and evaluated using cross-validation and hyperparameter tuning. External validation was performed with cohorts from the Jiangsu DiabEtes COgnitive Dysfunction Early Diagnosis and Intervention (DECODE) study and the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III). SHAP analysis identified key predictors, and a web interface was developed for practical application. Results: A total of 2074 participants were included. Significant predictors were education, age, GCA index (glycolipid metabolism), systolic blood pressure, eGFR, BMI, and diabetes duration. The support vector classifier (SVC) model achieved the highest performance, with an AUC of 0.74 ± 0.04, an Conclusions: This study compared machine learning models for diagnosing MCI in T2DM patients. The SVC model demonstrated strong efficacy and accuracy, highlighting the potential of machine learning in diagnosing MCI in this population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.