MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Belgrade childhood diabetes study – comparison of children with Type 1 diabetes with their siblings

2006· article· en· W2037553333 on OpenAlexaff
Hristina Vlajinac, Jelena Marinković, Milan Bjekić, Nikola Kocev, Silvija Sajić

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsSKiN Health
FundersScience and Engineering Research Board
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusLogistic regressionType 1 diabetesDiseaseType 2 diabetesDemographyPediatricsRisk factorPunishment (psychology)Developmental psychologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A case-control study was conducted in Belgrade (about 320,000 inhabitants 0-16 years old) during the period 1994-97, comprising 68 diabetic children (cases) and 68 controls chosen from the siblings of the cases. Analysis using multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated the following independent risk factors for Type 1 diabetes: higher birth order, infections during the 6 months preceding the onset of the disease and stressful events. Out of individual stressful and psychological factors, 'other' stressful events (severe accident or hospitalisation or death of a close friend, conflict with a teacher, death of a pet, failure in competition, quarrel between parents, punishment, physical attack, war in republics of former Yugoslavia and near drowning in the pool) and learning problems were independent risk factor for Type 1 diabetes. The results obtained in this study of siblings supports the hypothesis that environmental factors play a role in the development of Type 1 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatric and Perinatal EpidemiologySame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207