Home › Research › Hippocampus size on brain scans
Association of type 2 diabetes with brain atrophy and cognitive impairment
Roberts RO, Knopman DS, Przybelski SA, Mielke MM, Kantarci K, Preboske GM, Senjem ML, Pankratz VS et al.. Neurology, 2014-03-19
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Objective We investigated the associations of diabetes and hypertension with imaging biomarkers (markers of neuronal injury and ischemic damage) and with cognition in a population-based cohort without dementia. Methods Participants (n = 1,437, median age 80 years) were evaluated by a nurse and physician and underwent neuropsychological testing. A diagnosis of cognitively normal, mild cognitive impairment (MCI), or dementia was made by an expert panel. Participants underwent MRI to determine cortical and subcortical infarctions, white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, hippocampal volume (HV), and whole brain volume (WBV). The medical records were reviewed for diabetes and hypertension in midlife or later. Results Midlife diabetes was associated with subcortical infarctions (odds ratio, 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.15]; p = 0.02), reduced HV (-4% [-7 to -1.0]; p = 0.01), reduced WBV (-2.9% [-4.1 to -1.6]), and prevalent MCI (odds ratio, 2.08; p = 0.01). The association between diabetes and MCI persisted with adjustment for infarctions and WMH volume but was attenuated after adjustment for WBV (1.60 [0.87-2.95]; p = 0.13) and HV (1.82 [1.00-3.32]; p = 0.05). Midlife hypertension was associated with infarctions and WMH volume and was marginally associated with reduced performance in executive function. Effects of late-life onset of diabetes and hypertension were few. Conclusions Midlife onset of diabetes may affect late-life cognition through loss of brain volume. Midlife hypertension may affect executive function through ischemic pathology. Late-life onset of these conditions had fewer effects on brain pathology and cognition.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Roberts, R. O., Knopman, D. S., Przybelski, S. A., Mielke, M. M., Kantarci, K., Preboske, G. M., et al. (2014). Association of type 2 diabetes with brain atrophy and cognitive impairment. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000269
Vancouver
Roberts RO, Knopman DS, Przybelski SA, Mielke MM, Kantarci K, Preboske GM, et al. Association of type 2 diabetes with brain atrophy and cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2014. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000000269. PMID: 24647028.
BibTeX
@article{roberts2014-24647028,
author = {Roberts, R. O. and Knopman, D. S. and Przybelski, S. A. and Mielke, M. M. and Kantarci, K. and Preboske, G. M. and Senjem, M. L. and Pankratz, V. S. and others},
title = {{Association of type 2 diabetes with brain atrophy and cognitive impairment}},
journal = {Neurology},
year = {2014},
doi = {10.1212/wnl.0000000000000269},
pmid = {24647028},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0000000000000269}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Midlife diabetes was associated with subcortical infarctions (odds ratio, 1.85 [95% confidence interval, 1.09-3.15]; p = 0.02), reduced HV (-4% [-7 to -1.0]; p = 0.01), reduced WBV (-2.9% [-4.1 to -1.6]), and prevalent MCI (odds ratio, 2.08; p = 0.01).
- Midlife hypertension was associated with infarctions and WMH volume and was marginally associated with reduced performance in executive function.
Study details
- Participants1,437
- Effect size2.9%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 57/100
Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 57 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 9 / 10 | Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Neurology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2014 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 1,437 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 24647028) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 33 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 33 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 57 out of 100. |
| Total | 57 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Hippocampus size on brain scans
Also tagged “small”
900 studies in the library carry the topic tag “small”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 900 tagged studies.