Usage Information
Abstract
BACKGROUND We aimed to characterize factors associated with the under-studied complication of cognitive decline in aging people with long-duration type 1 diabetes (T1D).METHODS Joslin “Medalists” (n = 222; T1D ≥ 50 years) underwent cognitive testing. Medalists (n = 52) and age-matched nondiabetic controls (n = 20) underwent neuro- and retinal imaging. Brain pathology (n = 26) was examined. Relationships among clinical, cognitive, and neuroimaging parameters were evaluated.RESULTS Compared with controls, Medalists had worse psychomotor function and recall, which associated with female sex, lower visual acuity, reduced physical activity, longer diabetes duration, and higher inflammatory cytokines. On neuroimaging, compared with controls, Medalists had significantly lower total and regional brain volumes, equivalent to 9 years of accelerated aging, but small vessel disease markers did not differ. Reduced brain volumes associated with female sex, reduced psychomotor function, worse visual acuity, longer diabetes duration, and higher inflammation, but not with glycemic control. Worse cognitive function, lower brain volumes, and diabetic retinopathy correlated with thinning of the outer retinal nuclear layer. Worse baseline visual acuity associated with declining psychomotor function in longitudinal analysis. Brain volume mediated the association between visual acuity and psychomotor function by 57%. Brain pathologies showed decreased volumes, but predominantly mild vascular or Alzheimer’s-related pathology.CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study of cognitive function, neuroimaging, and pathology in aging T1D individuals demonstrated that cognitive decline was related to parenchymal rather than neurovascular abnormalities, unlike type 2 diabetes, suggestive of accelerated aging in T1D. Improving visual acuity could perhaps be an important preventive measure against cognitive decline in people with T1D.FUNDING The Beatson Foundation, NIH/NIDDK grants 3P30DK036836-34S1 and P30DK036836-37, and Mary Iacocca fellowships.
Authors
Hetal S. Shah, Matthew N. DeSalvo, Anastasia Haidar, Surya Vishva Teja Jangolla, Marc Gregory Yu, Rebecca S. Roque, Amanda Hayes, John Gauthier, Nolan Ziemniak, Elizabeth Viebranz, I-Hsien Wu, Kyoungmin Park, Ward Fickweiler, Tanvi J. Chokshi, Tashrif Billah, Lipeng Ning, Atif Adam, Jennifer K. Sun, Lloyd Paul Aiello, Yogesh Rathi, Mel B. Feany, George L. King
Usage data is cumulative from January 2025 through December 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 2,346 | 217 |
| 445 | 66 | |
| Figure | 570 | 0 |
| Table | 122 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 193 | 2 |
| Citation downloads | 226 | 0 |
| Totals | 3,902 | 285 |
| Total Views | 4,187 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
