Association of Parity With Risk of Type 2 Diabetes and Related Metabolic Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The relationship between parity and risk of diabetes is controversial, and little information is available regarding associations between parity and measures of insulin resistance and beta-cell function. The objective of this study was to investigate the association between parity and risk of glucose intolerance and related metabolic disorders using data from a population-based study in a Native Canadian community. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Female participants (n = 383, aged 12-79 years) provided fasting blood samples for the determination of glucose, insulin, C-peptide, and proinsulin concentrations. A 75-g oral glucose tolerance test was administered, and diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance were diagnosed according to World Health Organization criteria. Waist circumference and percent body fat were determined. Information regarding occurrence of live births and previously diagnosed diabetes was obtained from interviewer-administered questionnaires. RESULTS: Parity was associated with a significantly reduced risk of diabetes (nulliparous vs. >or=1 birth, odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.19- 0.94, P < 0.05) after adjustment for age and waist circumference. In addition, nondiabetic nulliparous women had significantly elevated concentrations of fasting insulin and proinsulin relative to nondiabetic parous women (all P < 0.05) in analyses adjusted for age and waist circumference. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with those from other populations experiencing high rates of diabetes and suggest the presence of a diabetes-prone phenotype within the nulliparous subcohort of this population, which may contribute to infertility.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".