Loading…

Associations between complexity of glucose time series and cognitive function in adults with type 2 diabetes

Aims To characterize the comparative contributions of different glycaemic indicators to cognitive dysfunction, and further investigate the associations between the most significant indicator and cognitive function, along with related cerebral alterations. Materials and Methods We performed a cross‐s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Diabetes, obesity & metabolism obesity & metabolism, 2024-03, Vol.26 (3), p.840-850
Main Authors: Yu, Congcong, Wang, Yaxin, Zhang, Bing, Xu, Xiang, Zhang, Wen, Ding, Qun, Miao, Yingwen, Hou, Yinjiao, Ma, Xuelin, Wu, Tianyu, Yang, Sijue, Fu, Linqing, Zhang, Zhou, Zhou, Jian, Bi, Yan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aims To characterize the comparative contributions of different glycaemic indicators to cognitive dysfunction, and further investigate the associations between the most significant indicator and cognitive function, along with related cerebral alterations. Materials and Methods We performed a cross‐sectional study in 449 subjects with type 2 diabetes who completed continuous glucose monitoring and cognitive assessments. Of these, 139 underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate cerebral structure and olfactory neural circuit alterations. Relative weight and Sobol's sensitivity analyses were employed to characterize the comparative contributions of different glycaemic indicators to cognitive dysfunction. Results Complexity of glucose time series index (CGI) was found to have a more pronounced association with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) compared to glycated haemoglobin, time in range, and standard deviation. The proportion and multivariable‐adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for MCI increased with descending CGI tertile (Tertile 1: reference group [≥4.0]; Tertile 2 [3.6‐4.0] OR 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68‐2.24; Tertile 3 [
ISSN:1462-8902
1463-1326
DOI:10.1111/dom.15376