| Title |
The Negative Effects of Obesity and Poor Glycemic Control on Cognitive Function: A Proposed Model for Possible Mechanisms
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Diabetes Reports, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11892-014-0495-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael L. Alosco, John Gunstad |
| Abstract |
Obesity has reached epidemic proportions and is a contributor to many adverse health outcomes, including increased risk for dementia and adverse structural and functional brain changes. Milder forms of cognitive impairment in multiple domains can also be found in obese individuals of all ages that are believed to stem from brain abnormalities long prior to onset of neurologic conditions such as dementia. However, the mechanisms for adverse brain changes and subsequent cognitive dysfunction in obesity are complex and poorly understood. This paper proposes a possible etiologic model for obesity associated cognitive impairment with emphasis on the role of poor glycemic control and conditions like type 2 diabetes mellitus. Clinical implications associated with treatment of obesity in persons with cognitive deficits in addition to the cognitive promoting effects of weight loss surgery are also discussed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Guatemala | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 111 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 24 | 21% |
| Unknown | 26 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 32 | 28% |
| Psychology | 9 | 8% |
| Neuroscience | 8 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 6% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
| Other | 21 | 18% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 May 2014.
All research outputs
#15,299,919
of 22,754,104 outputs
Outputs from Current Diabetes Reports
#646
of 1,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,873
of 226,939 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Diabetes Reports
#11
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,754,104 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 226,939 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.