Skip to main content
Download PDF

The association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function: findings from the China health and retirement longitudinal study

BMC Endocrine Disorders volume 22, Article number: 151 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The cognitive function of people with diabetes has gained an increasing interest in recent years, and this study focuses on exploring the relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function among the middle-aged and elderly people in China.

Methods

The data came from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) which was conducted between July and October 2015. 9855 subjects were enrolled in the study. Executive function and episodic memory were used to assess cognitive function. The subjects were divided into three groups: no diabetes, diagnosed diabetes, and undiagnosed diabetes, and weighted multiple linear regression models were established to evaluate the association of undiagnosed diabetes with cognitive function.

Results

After controlling for covariates, undiagnosed diabetes was statistically associated with executive function (β = −0.215, P < 0.01). In the age group of ≥65 years, undiagnosed diabetes was statistically associated with executive function (β = −0.358, P < 0.01) and episodic memory (β = −0.356, P < 0.01). When adjusting for confounders, no statistically significant associations were found between diagnosed diabetes and cognitive function except in 45-54 age group (β = 0.374, P < 0.05).

Conclusions

The cross-sectional study suggested that undiagnosed diabetes was linked to poor cognitive function, especially in the elderly population. Timely diagnosis and active treatment of diabetes are important to reduce the occurrence of cognitive impairment. Further prospective cohort studies are required to articulate the association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function.

Peer Review reports

Background

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic and progressive metabolic disorder, having become one of the major public health concerns throughout the world. As the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas reported in 2019 [1], the global prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 9.3%, about 463 million individuals suffering from diabetes, and estimated to be 10.2% (578 million) by 2030 and 10.9% (700 million) by 2045. However, more than half (50.1%) of people living with hyperglycemia were unaware that they had diabetes in 2019, compared to 49.7% in 201 7[2]. With the accelerating pace of population aging and the increasing prevalence of diabetes mellitus, complications of diabetes mellitus, especially the central nervous system impairment, have attracted more and more attention from the scientific community [3].

Cognitive dysfunction is generally defined as different degrees of cognitive impairment from mild cognitive dysfunction [4], a syndrome defined as cognitive decline greater than expected for an individual’s age and education level but not interfering notably with activities of daily life [5], to dementia which may disallow a patient to function without assistance. A variety of factors have been shown to influence cognitive function [6,7,8]. The relationship between diabetes and cognition has been reported extensively in many studies [9,10,11]. However, relatively few studies have been reported paying attention to the effect of undiagnosed diabetes on the relationship between diabetes and cognitive function among the middle-aged and elderly people in China. Furthermore, recent evidence indicated that undiagnosed diabetes could moderate the relationship between diabetes mellitus and cognitive function among Brazilian adults [12]. When undiagnosed diabetes was not correctly classified as either non-diabetes or self-reported diabetes, the relationship was attenuated, or became not statistically significant [13]. Individuals not aware of hyperglycemia have a greater risk of neurocognitive dysfunction than patients having been diagnosed with diabetes [14]. Accordingly, earlier identification and intervention of diabetes mellitus, especially the undiagnosed diabetes, is of great significance to prevent the deterioration of cognitive function [15].

Considering the high prevalence of diabetes and large number of undiagnosed diabetes in China [16], it is of great importance to differentiate the undiagnosed diabetes from the people without diabetes and explore the potential association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function based on a nationally representative health survey and blood test data. In addition, further confirmation of the relationship between different diabetes status and cognitive function was also performed in age-stratified subsamples. The findings may be helpful to alert national health authorities to enhance diabetic screening, promote health education, and improve the cognitive well-being among the middle-aged and elderly population.

Methods

Data source and study design

The data utilized in this study came from the 2015 wave of the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS), a nationally representative research design of middle-aged and elderly people in China. The project was first conducted in June 2011-March 2012 and attempted to provide a wide range of data from socioeconomic characteristics to health conditions. CHARLS baseline survey was carried out in 150 counties/districts, 450 villages/urban communities using multistage probability sampling. The detailed description of the CHARLS survey design and data collection strategy had been published previously [17, 18]. A second follow-up survey including questionnaires, physical examinations, and blood samples was conducted between July and October 2015. Further information of the blood collection, blood bioassays and descriptive summaries was available elsewhere [19]. The data is available freely at http://charls.pku.edu.cn/.

Participants included in the study should have complete information of demographic background, cognitive function measurement, blood glucose, glycated hemoglobin, blood lipid examination, blood pressure, BMI, self-rated health status, and depression assessment. Exclusion criteria for this study were: (1) having brain damage or mental retardation, (2) having memory-related diseases such as AD, brain atrophy, Parkinson’s disease, (3) having emotional, nervous, or psychiatric problems. Ultimately, 9855 subjects were included in this study, and they were separated into three groups according to the diabetes status, including 8093 participants without diabetes, 894 participants having been diagnosed with diabetes by a physician or a medical professional, and 868 participants having not yet reported being diagnosed with diabetes but meeting diagnostic criteria. More details about the selection of respondents were presented in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Participants included in the study

Full size image

This study was a secondary analysis of a public database. The original CHARLS was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of Peking University (IRB00001052-11015), and all participants signed the informed consent at the time of participation. The research has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Definition of diabetes status

According to the American Diabetes Association [20], the diagnostic criteria for diabetes mellitus were defined as (1) fasting plasma glucose (FPG) levels ≥126 mg/dL or 2-h plasma glucose (2-h PG) levels in an oral glucose tolerance test ≥200 mg/dL, (2) glycated hemoglobin levels ≥6.5%, (3) classic symptoms of hyperglycemia or hyperglycemic crisis, a random plasma glucose ≥200 mg/dL. The CHARLS survey also had three questions concerning diabetes:“ have you been diagnosed with diabetes or high blood sugar by a doctor?”, “How did you know that you had diabetes, through routine or CHARLS physical examination, or any other?”, and “Are you now taking any of the following treatments to treat diabetes?”. All participants enrolled in the study were classified into three groups: (1) no diabetes; (2) diagnosed diabetes; (3) undiagnosed diabetes. Subjects who had been diagnosed with diabetes by a physician or taking antidiabetic treatments were categorized into “diagnosed diabetes” group. “ Undiagnosed diabetes” group included the individuals fulfilling blood test criteria but without a history of physician diagnosis or taking medication. The remaining subjects were classified into “no diabetes” group.

Measurement of cognitive function

Based on the design of the American Health Retirement Study (HRS) [21], two core dimensions of cognitive function were assessed in CHARLS, including executive function and episodic memory.

The evaluation of executive function was based on the Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status (TICS-10) and figure redrawing [22]. TICS is a reliable and well-developed screening method of cognitive function [23], which consists of five items on time orientation and five items on the serial-7 s test. The participants were asked to answer today’s date (the month, day, and year), the day of the week, the current season of the year, and then serially subtract 7 from 100 for five times. A score of one was given for each correct answer, while zero for the incorrect. The total TICS scores range from 0 to 10 (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8) [24]. For the figure redrawing test, interviewees would receive one point if they successfully replicate a picture of two overlapped pentagons shown to them, and zero point if they failed to complete the task. Individual scores were the sum of correct answers, and the measure of executive function theoretically ranges from 0 to 11.

The other cognitive performance was episodic memory evaluated through immediate recall and delayed recall. The immediate word recall test was measured first when ten commonly used words were presented to participants. After completing a 10-item questionnaire on depression, the subjects were again instructed to recall as many of the target words as possible in whatever order. Correctly recalling a word was awarded one point, otherwise, awarded zero. Episodic memory was evaluated by calculating the average score of immediate recall and delayed recall, and the word-recall scores range from 0 to10 [9].

Covariates

Covariates considered in this study included sociodemographic characteristics, health behaviors, and cognition-related health condition. Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants mainly included gender, age, marital status, the highest level of education, and living areas; health behaviors included smoking habits and alcohol consumption status; the health condition included self-rated health status, BMI level, hypertension, dyslipidemia, and depression.

To examine the effect of age, all participants were divided into three groups: 45-54, 55-64, and ≥ 65 years. Education level was categorized into four groups: illiterate/semi-literate, primary education, middle school education, and high school education or above. Marital status was classified as married or cohabitated, widowed, and other status (including never married, divorced, or separated). Smokers were defined as having smoked more than 100 cigarettes including currently smoking and having quitted, and nonsmokers referred to never smoking. Drinkers were defined as ever drinking alcoholic beverages in the past year, and nondrinkers referred to drinking no alcohol. Based on the Chinese criteria of weight for adults [25], BMI was classified into the following groups: underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5-23.9 kg/m2), overweight (24.0-27.9 kg/m2), and obesity (≥28.0 kg/m2) [26].

Blood pressure of the participants was measured three times using the Omron HEM-7200 monitor. According to reference standards established by World Health Organization [27], hypertension was defined as mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥140 mmHg and/or mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥90 mmHg, taking self-reported physician diagnosis of hypertension into consideration. The Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression Scale (CESD) was adopted as an instrument of depression evaluation in this study [28]. CESD-10 was a short, valid, and reliable scale designed to assess mental disorders for the population in China [29, 30]. 10 questions about the number of negative feelings during the previous week were asked by the interviewers, each term including four grades: 0 (<1 day), 1 (1-2 days), 2 (3-4 days), and 3 (5-7 days). The range of depression scores was 0-30. For present study, a score equal or greater 12 indicated having depression [10, 31]. The lipids including total cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and Triglycerides were measured at Clinical Laboratory of Capital Medical University. Based on the Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Dyslipidemia in China [32], dyslipidemia was defined as TC ≥ 6.216 mmol/L, LDL ≥ 4.138 mmol/L, TG ≥ 2.250 mmol/L, or HD ≤ 1.036 mmol/L. Participants were considered as dyslipidemia when the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ≥5.0 in this study [33]. Individual subjective perception of current health status was also assessed by ranking from 1 (poor), 2 (fair), to 3 (good).

Statistical analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for sociodemographic characteristics, health behaviors, and health conditions. Continuous data were reported as mean ± standard deviation, and categorical data were reported as numbers and proportions. Differences between groups were tested using analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis H test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. Taking into account the multistage sampling and nonresponse, weighted multiple linear regression models were conducted to determine the potential relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function. Baseline models only including covariates were built to screen the significant characteristics. The establishment of crude models was to initially explore the possible relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and cognition. Then, we fit multiple linear regression models controlling for all significant confounding variables to better assess the association of undiagnosed diabetes with cognitive function. In addition, subgroup analyses were carried out to explore heterogeneity. Participants were classified into three groups (45-54,55-64, and ≥ 65 years), and linear regression models were separately constructed to examine whether the relationship was age-dependent. All analyses were conducted in Stata 15.0 (STATA Corporation, College Station, TX, USA), and P < 0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

Subjects characteristics

The sociodemographic and health characteristics of the whole sample and the different groups were summarized in Table 1. The mean age of the whole subjects was 60.95 years. More than half of the participants were female (53.41%), more participants (83.11%) were married or living together, and 43.32% of the participants were illiterate or semi-literate. Of the 9855 subjects eventually enrolled in the study, 894 were diagnosed with diabetes, while 868 were not undetected. Compared to nondiabetics, participants with diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes were more likely to suffer from hypertension (P < 0.001), dyslipidemia (P < 0.001), and depression (P < 0.01). People with undiagnosed diabetes showed poorer cognitive function than those who had been diagnosed with diabetes, with an average score of 5.945 for executive function and an average score of 3.081 for memory function, respectively.

Table 1 Sociodemographic and health characteristics of the study subjects
Full size table

Covariates and cognition

Table 2 showed the relationship between cognitive function and covariates. Being female, the elderly, and living in rural tended to have lower score both in executive function and episodic memory (P < 0.001). The participants with hypertension or depression performed worse cognitive function (P < 0.001). The people with dyslipidemia performed poor episodic memory (P < 0.05), but the difference in executive function was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). People having a history of alcohol intake and good self-rated health could get higher scores of episodic memory (P < 0.01). The higher the level of education, the better the cognitive function (P < 0.001).

Table 2 Correlation between covariates and cognition
Full size table

Diabetes Status and Cognition

We constructed crude models and multiple linear regression models to assess the association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function. The results were presented in Table 3. After adjusting for potential confounding variables discussed in the Table 2, subjects with undiagnosed diabetes showed lower executive function scores compared with nondiabetics(P < 0.01). However, this study did not find the statistical association between undiagnosed diabetes and episodic memory based on the full sample (P > 0.05).

Table 3 Association between different diabetes status and cognition
Full size table

Subgroup analysis

Weighted linear regression models were constructed to analyze the relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and cognition function in age-stratified subsamples. As demonstrated in Table 4, in the age stratum of ≥65 years, after adjusting for potential confounding variables, the subjects with undiagnosed diabetes performed worse cognitive scores both in executive function and episodic memory compared with the nondiabetics (P < 0.01). In addition, significant differences in episodic memory performance were found between undiagnosed diabetes and diagnosed diabetes (P < 0.05). No such differences were noted in any other age group. However, the estimated coefficient of diagnosed DM in adjusted model was 0.374 (P < 0.05) within the 45-54 years of age group.

Table 4 Association between diabetes status and cognition among different age groups
Full size table

Discussion

In the present study, we explored the association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function including executive function and episodic memory based on a nationally representative research of 9855 participants aged 45 years and older in China. Findings showed a high proportion (49.3%) of undiagnosed diabetes among the diabetic population, which was similar to the prevalence reported by the IDF Diabetes Atlas [1] and other studies [34,35,36]. Mainly, people with undiagnosed diabetes performed worse cognitive function than those who were diagnosed with diabetes and nondiabetics, especially individuals older than 65 years.

Substantial evidence on the relationship between diabetes and cognitive impairment had been reported [37,38,39]. Diabetes could predict increased incidence of cognitive impairment and dementia [3]. Based on a cohort study, Rawlings et al. [40] found that diabetes in midlife was associated with a 19% greater cognitive decline over 20 years. The pathophysiological mechanisms of cognitive impairment are still obscure, and diabetes is a risk factor for cognitive dysfunction [41]. It is likely that hyperglycemia, insulin resistance, diabetic complications, and brain structural changes play significant roles in the pathogenic process [42,43,44]. However, this study did not provide adequate evidence to support such hypothesis that people with diabetes had a higher risk of developing cognitive impairment (executive function and episodic memory), even after adjusting for potential confounders that could be related to cognitive function (i.e., age, gender, marriage, education, health status, and other factors). This finding was consistent with previous research [14]. Patients with diabetes were not subjected to cognitive impairment considering that treatment for diabetes might reduce the risk of dementia [45]. Individuals diagnosed with diabetes were treated with medication (such as metformin and ranolazine) or changing behaviors and lifestyle, and all of them could slow down the process of cognitive deterioration [46,47,48,49]. Zhang li et al. [9] also reported that untreated diabetes and HbA1c were the potential risk factor for cognitive impairment using the baseline data of CHARLS, and suggested that more longitudinal studies were needed to confirm the effect.

In our study of full sample (n = 9855), we found the significant relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and executive function based on multiple linear regression analysis controlling for other confounding factors. When compared to participants without diabetes and diagnosed with diabetes, participants having not yet reported being diagnosed with diabetes showed worse executive function (P < 0.01). Undiagnosed diabetes was a potential risk factor for cognitive impairment, especially for executive function. In the same line, previous studies also revealed the effect of undiagnosed diabetes on the association between diabetes and cognitive function. According to the research of Cochar-Soares et al. [12], when undiagnosed diabetics were misidentified as diabetics or nondiabetics, the strength of the relationship between diabetes and impaired memory could been attenuated. Analogously, in a cross-sectional study of 1033 Mexicans aged ≥50 years, Brian Downer et al. [13] reported the similar underestimated association. The association of diabetes with cognitive impairment decreased by 6.3% when undiagnosed diabetics were considered as nondiabetics and by 30.4% when undiagnosed diabetics were categorized as the diabetics. However, interestingly, the association between undiagnosed diabetes and episodic memory was not found in present study (P > 0.05). The dissimilarity in the relationship between diabetes and cognitive function may be affected by the differences in sociodemographic characteristics among different regions or countries [50]. Episodic memory was evaluated by immediate word recall and delayed word recall, obviously, which depended largely on the age and the education level of the participants. In the current study, we concluded that age was the factor negatively influencing episodic memory, and the older the age, the poor the episodic memory. Furthermore, people with a higher level of education were more likely to have better memory. These findings suggested that further studies were required to articulate their associations.

Additionally, to examine whether the relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function was age-dependent, the participants were classified into three age strata (45-54, 55-64, and ≥ 65 years), and weighted multiple linear regression models were performed separately in the three groups. In the age group of ≥65 years, a similar conclusion was found that people with undiagnosed diabetes showed poorer executive function than those without diabetes. But statistically significant difference in episodic memory performance between undiagnosed diabetes and non-diabetes was also demonstrated. Combining previous results [51,52,53], our study provided some additional evidence to support the association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function, especially in elderly population. In 45-54 age group and 55-64 age group, participants with undiagnosed diabetes failed to show any such difference in the domain of executive function and episodic memory compared to nondiabetics and diabetics. There had been evidence to support that cognitive impairment was associated both with diabetes duration [54], but also with age [55]. As expected, patients being older or having a longer duration of diabetes mellitus tended to preform worse cognitive function. This suggested that prevention and control of diabetes mellitus in middle age may help to retard cognitive decline later in life [40]. From this point, early screening and diagnosis of this metabolic disturbance could provide an effective way to promote cognitive health of diabetic people. In the three age groups, we did not arrive at the conclusion that people with diabetes performed worse cognitive function than those without diabetes, and this was consistent with the results based on the whole sample. Even in the 45-55 age group, patients diagnosed with diabetes showed better executive function than those without diabetes. Therefore, more in-deep research should be conducted to elaborate the association between diabetes and cognition.

There were some limitations in our study. First, the present results were based on the cross-sectional study design, and causal relationship between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function could not be inferred. Therefore, prospective longitudinal studies are needed to confirm the effect of undiagnosed diabetes on cognitive impairment in the near future. Second, although we adjusted for substantial confounding variables, the possibility of residual confounders remained in our analysis. Third, the data could be prone to recall bias and measurement error. Recall bias was intrinsic in the fact that frequent and severe conditions were more likely to be remembered. Measure error was possible in height, weight and blood test. Other limitations including some missing data for variables of interest in CHARLS questionnaire might cause sampling bias. Despite above limitations, the study also has a number of key strengths. First, the findings were based on a nationally representative research design of middle-aged and elderly people in China, which provided a large sample size and good representativeness for our research. Second, strict quality control and standardized measurement were performed in every stage of the research process, so the quality of current study can be guaranteed.

Conclusions

To conclude, the cross-sectional study suggested that undiagnosed diabetes was the potential risk factor for cognitive dysfunction, especially in the age group of ≥65 years old. In addition, we did not notice that people with diabetes performed worse cognitive function than those without diabetes. Based on current studies, it is an important point that timely diagnosis, early prevention and the optimum treatment of diabetes may contribute to slowing the progress of cognitive deterioration. Thus, governments, communities and public health departments should enhance the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diabetes mellitus. Given the large proportion of undiagnosed diabetes and complexity of diabetes complications, more observational, experimental and clinical studies remain to be developed with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up, and more detailed measurements of cognitive function.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used during the current study are publicly available at http://charls.pku.edu.cn.

Abbreviations

CHARLS:

China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study

HRS:

American Health Retirement Study

TICS:

Telephone Interview of Cognitive Status

CESD:

Center for Epidemiologic Study Depression Scale

References

  1. Saeedi P, Petersohn I, Salpea P, Malanda B, Karuranga S, Unwin N, et al. Global and regional diabetes prevalence estimates for 2019 and projections for 2030 and 2045: Results from the International Diabetes Federation Diabetes Atlas, 9(th) edition. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2019;157:107843.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, Huang Y, da Rocha Fernandes JD, Ohlrogge AW, et al. IDF Diabetes Atlas: Global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Xue M, Xu W, Ou YN, Cao XP, Tan MS, Tan L, et al. Diabetes mellitus and risks of cognitive impairment and dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 144 prospective studies. Ageing Res Rev. 2019;55:100944.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Li W, Huang E, Gao S. Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus and Cognitive Impairments: A Systematic Review. J Alzheimers Dis. 2017;57(1):29–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sanford AM. Mild cognitive impairment. Clin Geriatr Med. 2017;33(3):325–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim S, Kim Y, Park SM. Association between alcohol drinking behaviour and cognitive function: results from a nationwide longitudinal study of South Korea. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lo AH, Woodman RJ, Pachana NA, Byrne GJ, Sachdev PS. Associations between lifestyle and cognitive function over time in women aged 40-79 years. J Alzheimers Dis. 2014;39(2):371–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hersi M, Irvine B, Gupta P, Gomes J, Birkett N, Krewski D. Risk factors associated with the onset and progression of Alzheimer's disease: a systematic review of the evidence. Neurotoxicology. 2017;61:143–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhang L, Yang J, Liao Z, Zhao X, Hu X, Zhu W, et al. Association between diabetes and cognitive function among people over 45 years old in China: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(7):1294.

  10. Bai A, Tao L, Huang J, Tao J, Liu J. Effects of physical activity on cognitive function among patients with diabetes in China: a nationally longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):481.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Callisaya ML, Beare R, Moran C, Phan T, Wang W, Srikanth VK. Type 2 diabetes mellitus, brain atrophy and cognitive decline in older people: a longitudinal study. Diabetologia. 2019;62(3):448–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cochar-Soares N, de Carvalho DHT, de Andrade FB, Castro-Costa E, de Oliveira C, Lima-Costa MF, et al. Does undiagnosed diabetes mitigate the association between diabetes and cognitive impairment? Findings from the ELSI-Brazil study. J Diabetes. 2020;12(11):834–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Downer B, Kumar A, Mehta H, Al Snih S, Wong R. The Effect of Undiagnosed Diabetes on the Association Between Self-Reported Diabetes and Cognitive Impairment Among Older Mexican Adults. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Dement. 2016;31(7):564–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Momtaz YA, Hamid TA, Bagat MF, Hazrati M. The Association Between Diabetes and Cognitive Function in Later Life. Curr Aging Sci. 2019;12(1):62–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Palta P, Carlson MC, Crum RM, Colantuoni E, Sharrett AR, Yasar S, et al. Diabetes and Cognitive Decline in Older Adults: The Ginkgo Evaluation of Memory Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2017;73(1):123–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Ma RCW. Epidemiology of diabetes and diabetic complications in China. Diabetologia. 2018;61(6):1249–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao Y, Strauss J, Yang G, Giles J, Hu P, Hu Y, et al. CHARLS 2011-2012 national baseline users guide. 2013. http://charls.pku.edu.cn. Accessed 18 Apr 2021.

  18. Zhao Y, Hu Y, Smith JP, Strauss J, Yang G. Cohort profile: the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(1):61–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen X, Crimmins E, Hu PP, Kim JK, Meng Q, Strauss J, et al. Venous Blood-Based Biomarkers in the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study: Rationale, Design, and Results From the 2015 Wave. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188(11):1871–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Association AD. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(Suppl):S8–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sonnega A, Faul JD, Ofstedal MB, Langa KM, Phillips JW, Weir DR. Cohort Profile: the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(2):576–85.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Bentvelzen AC, Crawford JD, Theobald A, Maston K, Slavin MJ, Reppermund S. Validation and normative data for the modified telephone interview for cognitive status: the Sydney memory and ageing study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(10):2108–15.

  23. Seo EH, Lee DY, Kim SG, Kim KW, Kim DH, Kim BJ, et al. Validity of the telephone interview for cognitive status (TICS) and modified TICS (TICSm) for mild cognitive imparment (MCI) and dementia screening. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2011;52(1):e26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Xu H, Zhang Z, Li L, Liu J. Early life exposure to China's 1959-61 famine and midlife cognition. Int J Epidemiol. 2018;47(1):109–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Criteria of Weight for Adults. 2013. http://www.nhc.gov.cn/. Accessed 18 Apr 2021.

  26. Hu F, Xu L, Zhou J, Zhang J, Gao Z, Hong Z. Association between overweight, obesity and the prevalence of multimorbidity among the elderly: evidence from a cross-sectional analysis in Shandong, China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(22):8355.

  27. Organization WH. Global status report on noncommunicable diseases 2014. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Chen H, Mui AC. Factorial validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale short form in older population in China. Int Psychogeriatr. 2014;26(1):49–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Andresen EM, Malmgren JA, Carter WB, Patrick DL. Screening for depression in well older adults: evaluation of a short form of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). Am J Prev Med. 1994;10(2):77–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Liu H, Xu X, Hall JJ, Wu X, Zhang M. Differences in depression between unknown diabetes and known diabetes: results from China health and retirement longitudinal study. Int Psychogeriatr. 2016;28(7):1191–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheng ST, Chan AC. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in older Chinese: thresholds for long and short forms. Int J Geriatric Psychiatry. 2005;20(5):465–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Joint committee for guideline revision. 2016 Chinese guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia in adults. J Geriatr Cardiol. 2018;15(1):1–29.

  33. Wang Z, Li C, Yang Z, Ma J, Zou Z. Fetal and infant exposure to severe Chinese famine increases the risk of adult dyslipidemia: Results from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):488.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Li Z, Guo X, Jiang H, Sun G, Sun Y, Abraham MR. Diagnosed but Not Undiagnosed Diabetes Is Associated with Depression in Rural Areas. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(11):1136.

  35. Yin M, Augustin B, Shu C, Qin T, Yin P. Probit models to investigate prevalence of total diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes among aged 45 years or older adults in China. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0164481.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Chen S, Zhang Q, Dai G, Hu J, Zhu C, Su L, et al. Association of depression with pre-diabetes, undiagnosed diabetes, and previously diagnosed diabetes: a meta-analysis. Endocrine. 2016;53(1):35–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ashraghi MR, Pagano G, Polychronis S, Niccolini F, Politis M. Parkinson's disease, diabetes and cognitive impairment. Recent Pat Endocr Metab Immune Drug Discov. 2016;10(1):11–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cox DJ, Kovatchev BP, Gonder-Frederick LA, Summers KH, McCall A, Grimm KJ, et al. Relationships between hyperglycemia and cognitive performance among adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(1):71–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Dash SK. Cognitive impairment and diabetes. Recent Pat Endocr Metab Immune Drug Discov. 2013;7(2):155–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rawlings AM, Sharrett AR, Schneider AL, Coresh J, Albert M, Couper D, et al. Diabetes in midlife and cognitive change over 20 years: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(11):785–93.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Cheng G, Huang C, Deng H, Wang H. Diabetes as a risk factor for dementia and mild cognitive impairment: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Intern Med J. 2012;42(5):484–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Manschot SM, Biessels GJ, de Valk H, Algra A, Rutten GE, van der Grond J, et al. Metabolic and vascular determinants of impaired cognitive performance and abnormalities on brain magnetic resonance imaging in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia. 2007;50(11):2388–97.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Surkova EV, Tanashyan MM, Bespalov AI, Naminov AV. Diabetes mellitus and cognitive impairment. Ter Arkh. 2019;91(10):112–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Yuan XY, Wang XG. Mild cognitive impairment in type 2 diabetes mellitus and related risk factors: a review. Rev Neurosci. 2017;28(7):715–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Herath PM, Cherbuin N, Eramudugolla R, Anstey KJ. The Effect of Diabetes Medication on Cognitive Function: Evidence from the PATH Through Life Study. Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:7208429.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Cassano V, Leo A, Tallarico M, Nesci V, Cimellaro A, Fiorentino TV, et al. Metabolic and Cognitive Effects of Ranolazine in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Data from an in vivo Model. Nutrients. 2020;12(2):382.

  47. Hendrickx H, McEwen BS, Ouderaa F. Metabolism, mood and cognition in aging: the importance of lifestyle and dietary intervention. Neurobiol Aging. 2005;26(Suppl 1):1–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Podolski N, Brixius K, Predel HG, Brinkmann C. Effects of Regular Physical Activity on the Cognitive Performance of Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Systematic Review. Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2017;15(10):481–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Samaras K, Makkar S, Crawford JD, Kochan NA, Wen W, Draper B, et al. Metformin Use Is Associated With Slowed Cognitive Decline and Reduced Incident Dementia in Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: The Sydney Memory and Ageing Study. Diabetes Care. 2020;43(11):2691–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Zheng Y, Ley SH, Hu FB. Global aetiology and epidemiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its complications. Nat Rev Endocrinol. 2018;14(2):88–98.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Saczynski JS, Jónsdóttir MK, Garcia ME, Jonsson PV, Peila R, Eiriksdottir G, et al. Cognitive impairment: an increasingly important complication of type 2 diabetes: the age, gene/environment susceptibility--Reykjavik study. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168(10):1132–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Salinas RM, Hiriart M, Acosta I, Sosa AL, Prince MJ. Type 2 diabetes mellitus as a risk factor for dementia in a Mexican population. J Diabetes Complicat. 2016;30(7):1234–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Reitz C, Guzman VA, Narkhede A, DeCarli C, Brickman AM, Luchsinger JA. Relation of Dysglycemia to Structural Brain Changes in a Multiethnic Elderly Cohort. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2017;65(2):277–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Okereke OI, Kang JH, Cook NR, Gaziano JM, Manson JE, Buring JE, et al. Type 2 diabetes mellitus and cognitive decline in two large cohorts of community-dwelling older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(6):1028–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Ebady SA, Arami MA, Shafigh MH. Investigation on the relationship between diabetes mellitus type 2 and cognitive impairment. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008;82(3):305–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS) team for their contribution to the collection of data. Additionally, we thank the participants for their agreement to take part in the present study.

Funding

This study was granted by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No.81960018). The funders had no role in the design of the study, in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, or in the writing of the manuscript and the decision to publish.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Health Statistics, School of Public Health and Management, Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, 750004, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China

    Jiafei Yang, Jiangping Li & Yu Zhao

  2. Research Center of Health Big Data, Key Laboratory of Environmental Factors and Chronic Disease Control, Yinchuan, 750004, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, China

    Jiafei Yang, Haiming Xu, Jiangping Li, Yu Zhao, Suzhen Guan & Zhihong Liu

  3. Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, School of Public Health and Management, Ningxia Medical University, Yinchuan, 750004, China

    Haiming Xu, Suzhen Guan, Youjuan Fu, Rui Bao & Zhihong Liu

Authors
  1. Jiafei Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haiming Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jiangping Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yu Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suzhen Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Youjuan Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Rui Bao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Zhihong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JFY wrote and participated in all aspects of this paper. HMX, JPL, and YZ performed the data analysis and modified the manuscript. SZG, YJF, and RB participated in the data cleaning. ZHL edited, reviewed and supervised this research. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhihong Liu.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The original CHARLS was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of Peking University (IRB00001052-11015), and all participants signed the informed consent at the time of participation. The research has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, J., Xu, H., Li, J. et al. The association between undiagnosed diabetes and cognitive function: findings from the China health and retirement longitudinal study. BMC Endocr Disord 22, 151 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-022-01055-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12902-022-01055-x

Keywords

BMC Endocrine Disorders

ISSN: 1472-6823

Contact us