Spinal cord injury and type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between spinal cord injury (SCI) and type 2 diabetes in a large representative sample and to determine whether an association exists irrespective of known risk factors for type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Data were obtained on 60,678 respondents to the Statistics Canada 2010 Cycle of the cross-sectional Canadian Community Health Survey. Multivariable logistic regression, incorporating adjustment for confounders and probability weights to account for the Canadian Community Health Survey sampling method, was conducted to quantify this association. RESULTS: After adjustment for both sex and age, SCI was associated with a significant increased odds of type 2 diabetes (adjusted odds ratio = 1.66, 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.36). These heightened odds persisted after additional adjustment for smoking status, hypertension status, body mass index, daily physical activity, alcohol intake, and daily consumption of fruits and vegetables (fully adjusted odds ratio = 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.34-4.47). CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong association between SCI and type 2 diabetes, which is not explained by known risk factors for type 2 diabetes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".