Effects of ethnicity on diabetes incidence and prevention: results of the Diabetes REduction Assessment with ramipril and rosiglitazone Medication (DREAM) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Risk of Type 2 diabetes varies by ethnicity, but whether ethnicity remains important among those who have impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose is uncertain. Whether the effect of thiazolidinedione treatment on diabetes prevention in persons with non-diabetic dysglycaemia varies by ethnicity is also not known. We addressed these questions using data collected in the DREAM trial. METHODS: A 2-by-2 factorial double-blind randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of rosiglitazone and ramipril on the primary outcome of diabetes or death in persons meeting criteria for impaired glucose tolerance or impaired fasting glucose. The effect of these interventions by ethnicity was estimated using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 5269 adults, 2365 were randomly assigned to rosiglitzone and 2634 to placebo. South Asians showed a higher hazard for the primary outcome compared with Europeans (hazard ratio, 95% confidence interval 2.21, 1.41-3.47) adjusted for age, gender, BMI, waist-hip ratio and geographic region. A lesser increase in risk was seen in Black people (1.37, 1.04-1.81). A significant reduction in risk of the primary outcome with rosiglitazone treatment assignment was seen in all ethnic groups, but the treatment effect significantly differed by ethnicity (P=0.0242), with South Asians experiencing a smaller, and Latinos a larger preventive effect. CONCLUSIONS: Ethnicity is an important risk factor for Type 2 diabetes in dysglycaemic persons. All ethnic groups experienced a large significant reduction in diabetes risk because of rosiglitazone. The magnitude of this reduction differed by ethnicity. Given the post hoc nature of this analysis, further confirmation of these findings is needed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".