Comparison of prognosis for men with type 2 diabetes mellitus and men with cardiovascular disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus are at high risk for cardiovascular disease. In some studies, the mortality rate among people with this condition has been equivalent to that among people with cardiovascular disease. We compared cardiovascular mortality between incident cases of diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: The study population was part of a random sample of 4376 men from Quebec, Canada, aged 35 to 64 years, who did not have cardiovascular disease in 1974 and who were followed until 1998. Three groups of incident cases were identified: diabetes without cardiovascular disease, first cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, unstable angina or stroke) without diabetes, and both cardiovascular disease and diabetes. These cases were age-matched to a control group without diabetes or cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: During the 24-year follow-up period, new diabetes without cardiovascular disease was documented in 137 men. A first cardiovascular event without diabetes was documented in 527 men. Relative to the 627 controls, men with 1 of the 2 diseases of interest had higher cardiovascular mortality (age-adjusted relative risk [RR] 3.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96-4.92) for those with diabetes and 4.46 (95% CI 3.15-6.30) for those with cardiovascular disease). However, within the first 5 years after diagnosis, men with cardiovascular disease had higher cardiovascular mortality than men with diabetes (age-adjusted RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.01-4.08). INTERPRETATION: Men with isolated type 2 diabetes and men with isolated cardiovascular disease had similar cardiovascular mortality rates several years after initial diagnosis of either condition. These findings reinforce the need to prevent and optimally manage diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".