Income-related differences in mortality among people with diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mortality has declined substantially among people with diabetes mellitus over the last decade. Whether all income groups have benefited equally, however, is unclear. We examined the impact of income on mortality trends among people with diabetes. METHODS: In this population-based, retrospective cohort study, we compared changes in mortality from Apr. 1, 1994, to Mar. 31, 2005, by neighbourhood income strata among people with diabetes aged 30 years or more in the province of Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Overall, the annual age- and sex-adjusted mortality declined, from 4.05% in 1994/95 (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.98%-4.11%) to 2.69% in 2005/06 (95% CI 2.66%-2.73%). The decrease was significantly greater in the highest income group (by 36%) than in the lowest income group (by 31%; p < 0.001). This trend was most pronounced in the younger group (age 30-64 years): the mortality rate ratio widened by more than 40% between the lowest and highest income groups, from 1.12 to 1.59 among women and from 1.14 to 1.60 among men. Income had a much smaller effect on mortality trends in the older group, whose drug costs are subsidized: the income-related difference rose by only 0.9% over the study period. INTERPRETATION: Mortality declined overall among people with diabetes from 1994 to 2005; however, the decrease was substantially greater in the highest income group than in the lowest, particularly among those aged 30-64 years. These findings illustrate the increasing impact of income on the health of people with diabetes even in a publicly funded health care setting. Further studies are needed to explore factors responsible for these income-related differences in mortality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".