Trends in diabetes treatment in Canadians, 1994–2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in the treatment of diabetes using the biannual interviews of the longitudinal National Population Health Survey (NPHS), 1994-2004 as they relate to changes in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). METHODS: A sample of 17 276 Canadians 18 years and older was selected for repeated interviews at two-year intervals from 1994 to 2004 for the NPHS. The population used for this study includes all respondents aged 40 to 79 for any of the cycles. RESULTS: CPGs issued by the Canadian Diabetes Association in 1998 and 2004 recommend a stepwise introduction of lifestyle changes, to be followed by single then multiple oral antidiabetic agents (OA), and finally insulin until adequate control is achieved. While the use of OA increased, only a small proportion indicated diet or physical exercise as part of their treatment; those with no drug treatment reported less diet modification and physical exercise. Antihypertensives and statin use in Canadians with diabetes increased to double that of Canadians overall, but remained underutilized. CONCLUSION: This study provides an update on the treatment of diabetes in Canada between 1994 and 2004. While some changes in diabetes treatment were compatible with CPGs, there is room for improvement, especially in lifestyle modifications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".