Stroke Associated with Diabetes among Canadians: Sex and Age Differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the age and sex variations in the relationship between diabetes and stroke. METHODS: This analysis was based on data from 61,327 Canadians > or =45 years of age who participated in the Canadian Community Health Survey in 2000-2001. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the association between diabetes and stroke, and effect modification by age and sex. RESULTS: The association between diabetes and stroke was stronger in the 45- to 64-year age group than the > or =65 year age group in men but not in women. The increased risk of stroke associated with diabetes was much stronger in men (adjusted OR = 3.86, 95% CI = 2.44-6.13) than in women (adjusted OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 0.88-2.99), and this difference was only observed in the younger age group. The results were similar after further adjustment for hypertension and heart disease. CONCLUSIONS: There is a stronger association between stroke and diabetes in men than in women 45-64 years of age, suggesting men are more susceptible to stroke than women when they have 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".