Cited by 1,049Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchDiabetes Management and ResearchCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 89 of the 90 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 86 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Cognitive decline and dementia in diabetes—systematic overview of prospective observational studies

Abstract

Aims/hypothesis We systematically reviewed and summarised prospective data relating diabetes status to changes in cognitive function over time.Methods Published reports of longitudinal studies that described assessment of cognitive function in people with diabetes were sought. Studies were included if they assessed cognitive function in participants with diabetes at the beginning and at follow-up. Studies were excluded if they had (1) a follow-up period of less than 1 year, (2) a rate of loss to follow-up in excess of 30%, or (3) described selected subgroups. Change in cognitive function was recorded as either the mean change in score and/or the proportion of individuals developing various degrees of change in cognitive function. A pooled estimate was calculated for the latter.Results Of 1,165 abstracts and titles initially identified, 25 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Individuals with diabetes had a 1.2- to 1.5-fold greater change over time in measures of cognitive function than those without diabetes. When assessed by the Mini-Mental State Exam and the Digit Symbol Span tests, a diagnosis of diabetes increased the odds of cognitive decline 1.2-fold (95% CI 1.05-1.4) and 1.7-fold (95% CI 1.3-2.3), respectively . The odds of future dementia increased 1.6-fold (95% CI 1.4-1.8).Conclusions/interpretation Compared to people without diabetes, people with diabetes have a greater rate of decline in cognitive function and a greater risk of cognitive decline. Cognitive dysfunction should therefore be added to the list of chronic complications of diabetes.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This systematic overview of 25 prospective observational studies found that people with diabetes have greater cognitive decline and a higher risk of dementia than people without diabetes. The authors conclude that cognitive dysfunction should be added to the list of chronic complications of diabetes.

Key findings

  • Among 25 included articles covering more than 8,656 people with diabetes and follow-up periods of 2 to 18 years, diabetes was associated with a 1.2- to 1.5-fold greater change over time in measures of cognitive function.
  • Pooled estimates showed increased odds of cognitive decline on the MMSE/3MS (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.05–1.4) and DSS (OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3–2.3), and a 1.6-fold higher risk of future all-cause dementia (95% CI 1.4–1.8).
  • For dementia subtypes, risks ranged from 1.2 to 2.3 for Alzheimer’s disease and from 2.2 to 3.4 for vascular dementia.
  • In continuous DSS analyses, three studies reported a decline of 1.3 to 1.4% per year in people with diabetes; overall this decline was up to 1.5 times greater than in people without diabetes.

Methods

  • Systematic review of longitudinal/prospective observational studies; Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched, along with expert contact and bibliography review. Of 1,165 abstracts/titles, 50 were fully reviewed and 25 met inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  • Inclusion required baseline and follow-up cognitive assessment, diabetes or glucose tolerance status, and English-language reporting; exclusions were follow-up under 1 year, loss to follow-up over 30%, or selected subgroups.
  • Data were abstracted on age, diabetes definition, participant numbers, follow-up length, cognitive tools, and outcomes; pooled inverse variance-weighted log risk ratios with 95% CIs were calculated, with heterogeneity assessed by the Q statistic using Review Manager 4.2.

Limitations

  • The paper states possible publication bias, though it argues this is unlikely because many included studies were prospective cohorts examining many risk factors; it also states that MMSE/3MS may underestimate diabetes effects because it poorly detects attention and processing speed.
  • The paper states that included studies differed in definitions of clinically meaningful decline, diabetes identification, age groups, cognitive tools, statistical adjustment, baseline cognitive impairment, and follow-up completeness (73–92%), and that there is no evidence to date that diabetes management affects the rate or nature of cognitive dysfunction.
  • Evident from the text: only three studies explicitly reported that data were collected without examiner awareness of diabetes status, and some pooled estimates relied on few studies, such as the DSS estimate based on two studies.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00125-005-0023-4

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 86 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 43 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 12
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The definitions of dementia used in the included studies are sufficiently comparable to be combined in the review.

    “The definition of dementia used in each study was accepted for this review.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cognitive assessment instruments used across the included studies measure cognitive decline in a comparable way.

    “Cognitive function was measured using a variety of simple cognitive tests [9, 13, 14].”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The included studies' participants with diabetes are representative of people with diabetes generally.

    “The 25 remaining articles [46 -70] comprised data from more than 8,656 people with diabetes, with follow-up periods ranging from 2 to 18 years.”
3 of 3

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Fig. 3 non-diabetes-group total does not sum to its available counts

    Minor

    The four numerical non-diabetes-group counts displayed in Fig. 3 sum to 11,497, not the reported total of 10,044; the remaining study's count is marked NA.

    Reported 10044 · recomputed 11497

  • Gregg comparison-group count differs between Table 3 and Fig. 1

    Minor

    Fig. 1 lists 584 participants without diabetes for Gregg et al., whereas Table 3 lists 5,844 for the same study. The Fig. 1 total is consistent with 5,844, not 584.

  • Fig. 3 diabetes-group total does not sum to its study counts

    Minor

    The five diabetes-group counts displayed in Fig. 3 sum to 3,585, not the reported total of 2,723.

    Reported 2723 · recomputed 3585

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 90 references

1 of the 90 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 998

Metadata

Authors
Cukierman, T., Gerstein, H. C., & Williamson, J. D.
Affiliations
  • Population Health Research Institute (CA)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
Corresponding author
Cukierman, T.
Venue
Diabetologia
Published
2005-11-08
Volume
48
Issue
12
Pages
2460-2469
ISSN
  • 0012-186X (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0428
OpenAlex
W2046949772
Cited by
1,049
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 61 · 2016: 65 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 77 · 2013: 64 · 2012: 43
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetologia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
diabetes mellitus, cognitive decline, dementia, cognitive function, Mini-Mental State Examination, Digit Symbol Substitution Test, chronic complications of diabetes, longitudinal cohort
MeSH terms
Cognition, Cognition Disorders, Dementia, Diabetes Mellitus, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Intelligence Tests, Longitudinal Studies, Neuropsychological Tests, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Odds Ratio, Diabetes Complications

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review