A comparison of the assessment and management of cardiometabolic risk in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus in Canadian primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the cardiometabolic risk (CMR) assessment and management patterns for individuals with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Canadian primary care practices. METHODS: Between April 2011 and March 2012, physicians from 9 primary care teams and 88 traditional non-team practices completed a practice assessment on the management of 2461 patients >40 years old with no clinical evidence of cardiovascular disease and diagnosed with at least one of the following risk factor-T2DM, dyslipidaemia or hypertension. RESULTS: There were 1304 individuals with T2DM and 1157 without. Pharmacotherapy to manage hyperglycaemia, dyslipidaemia and hypertension was widely prescribed. Fifty-eight percent of individuals with T2DM had a glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ≤7.0%. Amongst individuals with dyslipidaemia, median low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) was 1.8 mmol/l for those with T2DM and 2.8 mmol/l for those without. Amongst individuals with hypertension, 30% of those with T2DM achieved the <130/80 mmHg target, whereas 60% of those without met the <140/90 mmHg target. The composite glycaemic, LDL-C and blood pressure (BP) target outcome was achieved by 12% of individuals with T2DM. Only 17% of individuals with T2DM and 11% without were advised to increase their physical activity. Dietary modifications were recommended to 32 and 10% of those with and without T2DM, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients at elevated CMR were suboptimally managed in the primary care practices surveyed. There was low attainment of recommended therapeutic glycaemic, lipid and BP targets. Advice on healthy lifestyle changes was infrequently dispensed, representing a missed opportunity to educate patients on the long-term benefits of lifestyle modification.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".