The Global Relationship Between the Prevalence of Diabetes Mellitus and Incidence of Tuberculosis: 2000-2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dual burden of tuberculosis (TB) and diabetes mellitus (DM) has increased over the past decade with DM prevalence increasing in countries already afflicted with a high burden of TB. The coexistence of the two conditions presents a serious threat to global public health. OBJECTIVE: The present study examines the global relationship between the prevalence of DM and the incidence of TB to evaluate their coexistence worldwide and their contribution to one another. METHODS: This is an ecological longitudinal study covering the period between years 2000 to 2012. We utilized data from the WHO and World Bank sources and International Diabetes Federation to estimate prevalence of DM (%) and the incidence of TB (per 100,000). Measures of central tendency and dispersion as well as the harmonic mean and linear regression were used for different WHO regions. The association between DM prevalence and TB incidence was examined by quartile of DM prevalence. RESULTS: The worldwide average (±S.D.) prevalence of DM within the study period was 6.6±3.8% whereas TB incidence was 135.0±190.5 per 100,000. DM prevalence was highest in the Eastern Mediterranean (8.3±4.1) and West Pacific (8.2±5.6) regions and lowest in the Africa (3.5±2.6). TB incidence was highest in Africa (313.1±275.9 per 100,000) and South-East Asia (216.7±124.9) and lowest in the European (46.5±68.6) and American (47.2±52.9) regions. Only countries with high DM prevalence (>7.6%) showed a significant positive association with TB incidence (r=0.17, p=0.013). CONCLUSION: A positive association between DM and TB may exist in some - but not all - world regions, a dual burden that necessitates identifying the nature of this coexistence to assist in developing public health approaches that curb their rising burden.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".