MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048064344 · doi:10.3111/200609083099

Prediction of acute and chronic complications by a new computer simulation model for type 1 and type 2 diabetes: the Diabetes Mel l it us Model (DMM)

2006· article· en· W2048064344 on OpenAlexaff
R Bergemann, Hans Hauner, Andrew D. Morris, Seán F. Dinneen, Samy Suissa, Dmitry Gultyaev, Stefanie Maxion‐Bergemann, Elvira Müller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Economics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicroalbuminuriaDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesMyocardial infarctionType 1 diabetesStroke (engine)RetinopathyType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetic retinopathyHeart failureInternal medicineDiseaseSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryAn epidemiological simulation model for patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes (the Diabetes Mellitus Model (DMM)) was developed based on published clinical and observational data and expert estimations, for prediction of short- and long-term outcomes in defined patient cohorts. A computer program was developed with an interface for definition of patient cohorts and for results display. Patient cohorts can be user-defined by gender, age, duration and type of diabetes, glycosylated haemoglobin, blood pressure, albumin excretion and therapy. Based on riskequations and current risk variable levels, the DMM simulates complications over 10 years (hypoglycaemia; retinopathy; blindness; microalbuminuria and macroalbuminuria; end-stage renal disease; neuropathy; amputation; diabetic foot syndrome; myocardial infarction; stroke; angina pectoris; heart failure; and death). The DMM is suitable for simulation of complications and for estimation of clinical implications of various diabetes care strategies, and may be particularly valuable in lieu of long-term clinical trial data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EconomicsSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207