Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39966445›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The relationship between estimated glucose disposal rate and cognitive function in older individuals.

Li Li, Chengbo Li, Jiang Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Li LiDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College, Hebei, China. 895809697@qq.com.
Chengbo LiDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College, Hebei, China.
Jiang ZhuDepartment of Neurology, Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College, Hebei, China.

Funding

S&T Program of Chengde 202204A038
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The estimated glucose disposal rate (eGDR) serves as a novel indicator of insulin resistance, which has been shown to correlate with cardiovascular disease risk; however, its relationship with cognitive function remains unclear.This article describes a cross-sectional study design based on data from the 2011-2014 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The Weighted logistic regression and the restricted cubic spline were employed to examine the relationship between eGDR and cognitive ability.The subjects were divided into two categories: the normal group and the cognitive function decline (CFD) group, based on their cognitive scores. There were significant differences in eGDR levels between the two groups(P = 0.001).After adjusting for relevant covariates, notable differences were found between eGDR and cognitive function when eGDR was expressed in both continuous and categorical data forms (P < 0.05). The stability of these findings was further confirmed through sensitivity analyses.This difference persisted in subgroups, including women, individuals with education beyond high school, moderate drinkers, and those who had not been diagnosed with stroke (P < 0.05). A restricted cubic spline revealed a non-linear relationship with an inflection point between the two (P-for-non-linear < 0.05, P-overall < 0.001). This study contributes to the understanding of the relationship between eGDR and cognitive performance by identifying a potential non-linear association.

Indexed as

Blood GlucoseCognitionCognitive DysfunctionGlucoseAgedAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInsulin ResistanceMaleMiddle AgedNutrition SurveysRisk FactorsBlood GlucoseGlucose

Identifiers

PMID39966445
PMCPMC11836112

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.