MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978746763 · doi:10.2337/dc05-1550

Diabetes as a Tracer Condition in International Benchmarking of Health Systems

2006· article· en· W1978746763 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Nolte, Chris Bain, Martin McKee

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentUniversity of BristolLeverhulme Trust
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusStandardized mortality ratioIncidence (geometry)DemographyPopulationGerontologyCase fatality rateMortality ratePublic healthCohort studyCohortEnvironmental healthInternal medicineEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of health systems using diabetes as a tracer condition. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We generated a measure of "case-fatality" among young people with diabetes using the mortality-to-incidence ratio (M/I ratio) for 29 industrialized countries using published data on diabetes incidence and mortality. Standardized incidence rates for ages 0-14 years were extracted from the World Health Organization DiaMond study for the period 1990-1994; data on death from diabetes for ages 0-39 years were obtained from the World Health Organization mortality database and converted into age-standardized death rates for the period 1994-1998, using the European standard population. RESULTS: The M/I ratio varied >10-fold. These relative differences appear similar to those observed in cohort studies of mortality among young people with type 1 diabetes in five countries. A sensitivity analysis showed that using plausible assumptions about potential overestimation of diabetes as a cause of death and underestimation of incidence rates in the U.S. yields an M/I ratio that would still be twice as high as in the U.K. or Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The M/I ratio for diabetes provides a means of differentiating countries on quality of care for people with diabetes. It is solely an indicator of potential problems, a basis for stimulating more detailed assessments of whether such problems exist, and what can be done to address them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.102
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.212
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1020.212
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations145
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207