Type 2 diabetes in family practice. Room for improvement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To further knowledge of diabetes management in family practice. DESIGN Retrospective, observational chart audit study. SETTING: Southwestern Ontario. PARTICIPANT: A random sample of non-academic family physicians and a random selection of their patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Glycemic control as measured by HbA1c and adherence to recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). RESULTS: Eighty-four percent of patients had at least one HbA1c test ordered in the previous year. Overall mean HbA1c was 0.079 and half-the patients had levels deemed acceptable by 1992 CPGs. Screening for microvascular complications was disappointing; only 28% were tested for microalbuminuria, and 15% were examined for diabetes-related foot conditions. Screening for macrovascular complications was more comprehensive; blood pressure was measured in 88%, and lipid profiles documented in 48%, of patient charts. CONCLUSION: Management of glycemic control and screening for microvascular and macrovascular disease in family practice can be improved.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".