Trends in laboratory testing for diabetes in Ontario, Canada 1995–2005: A population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are concerns that testing for type 2 diabetes is low and many people with diabetes are not diagnosed. We sought to describe the rates of diabetes-related lab testing in Ontario from 1995-2005, among adults without diabetes, and to explore the extent to which the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for screening are being followed. METHODS: Descriptive counts of outpatient diabetes laboratory tests performed within Ontario's publicly funded, provincial health insurance program were recorded. The study population was Ontario residents, 20 years and older from 1995 to 2005 (9.3 million people in 2005). The Ontario Diabetes Database, a cumulative registry derived from administrative health records, was used to exclude people who had physician-diagnosed diabetes (n = 839,127 in 2005) from the primary analyses. Diabetes tests included serum blood glucose (SBG), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and oral glucose tolerance tests (OGTT). RESULTS: In 2005, 37% of Ontario adults without pre-existing diabetes were tested with an SBG test, a 28% increase from 1995. The age-adjusted proportion of adults without diabetes undergoing a HbA1c test increased from 1.7% in 1995 to 6.0% in 2005. In 2005, a similar number of HbA1c tests were performed for individuals with diabetes (483,746) and without diabetes (496,616) despite large differences in the two groups' denominators. Less than 1% of Ontarians underwent OGTT testing in any year between 1995-2005. Nearly two-thirds of adults age 40 years and over had an SBG test over a 3-year period (April 1, 2002-March 31, 2005), in accordance with the Canadian Diabetes Association recommendations. CONCLUSION: Diabetes testing is common and has increased over the last ten years. Despite its absence in Canada's diabetes screening recommendations, HbA1c testing among individuals without diabetes is increasing rapidly, and OGTT, which is recommended, is rarely performed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".