4.7 Article

Altered Brain Dynamics in Patients With Type 1 Diabetes During Working Memory Processing

期刊

DIABETES
卷 67, 期 6, 页码 1140-1148

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/db17-1382

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [F31-AG-055332, R01-MH103220]
  2. National Science Foundation [1539067]
  3. Nebraska Health System
  4. University of Nebraska Medical Center
  5. Office Of The Director
  6. Office of Integrative Activities [1539067] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is now generally accepted that diabetes increases the risk for cognitive impairment, but the precise mechanisms are poorly understood. A critical problem in linking diabetes to cognitive impairment is that patients often have multiple comorbidities (e.g., obesity, hypertension) that have been independently linked to cognitive deficits. In the study reported here we focused on young adults with and without type 1 diabetes who were virtually free of such comorbidities. The two groups were matched on major health and demographic factors, and all participants completed a verbal working memory task during magnetoencephalographic brain imaging. We hypothesized that patients would have altered neural dynamics in verbal working memory processing and that these differences would directly relate to clinical disease measures. Accordingly, we found that patients had significantly stronger neural responses in the superior parietal cortices during memory encoding and significantly weaker activity in parietal-occipital regions during maintenance compared with control subjects. Moreover, disease duration and glycemic control were both significantly correlated with neural responses in various brain regions. In conclusion, young healthy adults with type 1 diabetes already have aberrant neural processing relative to their peers without diabetes, using compensatory responses to perform the task, and glucose management and duration may play a central role.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据