Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes or members of their families invariably ask questions about the morbidity and mortality associated with this new disorder they must contend with. Some younger children are frightened that the “di” in diabetes means that they will die soon. Teens often use as an excuse for their noncompliance the view that they are going to die young and that nothing they do will alter that course. What are the facts? And, are they already out-of-date, given recent improvements in diabetes care? Feudtner (1) called type 1 diabetes “ a disease in motion,” citing its “transmutation” from a uniformly lethal condition in the preinsulin era to its present status as a serious chronic disorder based on its long-term morbidity and mortality. Diabetes-related mortality should be separated in two: deaths occurring early in the course, invariably associated with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) or hypoglycemia, and those resulting from long-term micro- and macrovascular complications. The article in this issue of Diabetes Care by Nishimura et al. (2) reports long-term mortality in nearly 1,000 type 1 diabetic patients diagnosed before age 18 years in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, between 1965 and 1979. They found a significant improvement in survival in the more recently diagnosed individuals and concluded that this improvement likely stems from better glycemic and blood pressure control resulting from the availability of blood glucose monitoring, HbA1c assays, and newer antihypertensive agents. In life table analyses provided by Nishimura et al. (2) the cumulative survival was 98% at 10 years and 79.6% at 30 years. …
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".