Plasma bicarbonate and risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several biomarkers of metabolic acidosis, including lower plasma bicarbonate and higher anion gap, have been associated with greater insulin resistance in cross-sectional studies. We sought to examine whether lower plasma bicarbonate is associated with the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus in a prospective study. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, nested case-control study within the Nurses' Health Study. Plasma bicarbonate was measured in 630 women who did not have type 2 diabetes mellitus at the time of blood draw in 1989-1990 but developed type 2 diabetes mellitus during 10 years of follow-up. Controls were matched according to age, ethnic background, fasting status and date of blood draw. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for diabetes by category of baseline plasma bicarbonate. RESULTS: After adjustment for matching factors, body mass index, plasma creatinine level and history of hypertension, women with plasma bicarbonate above the median level had lower odds of diabetes (OR 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-0.96) compared with women below the median level. Those in the second (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67-1.25), third (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.97) and fourth (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54-1.05) quartiles of plasma bicarbonate had lower odds of diabetes compared with those in the lowest quartile (p for trend = 0.04). Further adjustment for C-reactive protein did not alter these findings. INTERPRETATION: Higher plasma bicarbonate levels were associated with lower odds of incident type 2 diabetes mellitus among women in the Nurses' Health Study. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding in different populations and to elucidate the mechanism for this relation.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".