Image_1_Cognitive Dysfunction in Type 2 Diabetes Is Not a One-Way Process: Evidence From a Longitudinal Brain Connectivity Study.tif
Cognitive dysfunction is an important comorbidity of diabetes characterized by brain functional hypo-connectivity. However, our recent study demonstrated an adaptive hyper-connectivity in young type 2 diabetes with cognitive decrements. This longitudinal study aimed to further explore the changes in functional connectivity and cognitive outcomes after regular glycemic control.
MethodsAt 18 months after recruitment, participants underwent a second cognitive assessment and magnetic resonance imaging. Three enhanced functional connectivities previously identified at baseline were followed up. Linear mixed-effects models were performed to compare the longitudinal changes of cognition and functional connectivity in patients with type 2 diabetes and non-diabetic controls. A linear regression model was used to investigate the association between changes in functional connectivity and changes in cognitive performance.
ResultsImprovements in multiple cognitive domains were observed in diabetes; however, the enhanced functional connectivity at baseline decreased significantly. Moreover, the decrease in hippocampal connectivity was correlated with an increase in the accuracy of Stroop task and the decrease in posterior cingulate cortex connectivity was correlated with an increase in Montreal Cognitive Assessment in diabetes.
ConclusionThis study suggests diabetes-related cognitive dysfunction is not a one-way process and the early-stage enhancement of brain connectivity was a potential “window period” for cognitive reversal.
History
References
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30118-2
- https://doi.org//10.1007/s00125-019-04977-9
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S2213-8587(13)70088-3
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30139-3
- https://doi.org//10.1038/s41574-018-0048-7
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.yfrne.2017.07.001
- https://doi.org//10.2337/db14-1000
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fnana.2018.00021
- https://doi.org//10.2337/db13-1219
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc13-2127
- https://doi.org//10.1210/jc.2018-02319
- https://doi.org//10.2337/db16-0414
- https://doi.org//10.2337/db11-1358
- https://doi.org//10.2337/diacare.21.12.2191
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fnsys.2010.00013
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuroimage.2005.02.018
- https://doi.org//10.1186/s13195-020-00646-x
- https://doi.org//10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.01.001
- https://doi.org//10.31887/DCNS.2018.20.2/smarek
- https://doi.org//10.1080/13854046.2013.836567
- https://doi.org//10.31887/DCNS.2019.21.1/bbendlin
- https://doi.org//10.3389/fnins.2019.01112
- https://doi.org//10.2337/dc20-0892
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S1474-4422(20)30173-3
- https://doi.org//10.1016/S2213-8587(20)30113-3
CC BY 4.0