Risk distribution and its influence on the population targets for diabetes prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the influence of type 2 diabetes risk distribution on prevention benefit and apply a method to optimally identify population targets. METHODS: We used data from the 2011 Canadian Community Health Survey (N=45,040) and the validated Diabetes Population Risk Tool to calculate 10-year diabetes risk. We calculated the Gini coefficient as a measure of risk dispersion. Intervention benefit was estimated using absolute risk reduction (ARR), number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and number of cases prevented. RESULTS: There is a wide variation of diabetes risk in Canada (Gini=0.48) and with an inverse relation to risk (r=-0.99). Risk dispersion is lower among individuals meeting an empirically derived risk cut-off (Gini=0.18). Targeting prevention based on a risk cut-off (10-year risk ≥ 16.5%) resulted in a greater number of cases prevented (340 thousand), higher ARR (7.7%) and lower NNT (13) compared to targeting individuals based on risk factor targets. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence to demonstrate that risk variability is an important consideration for estimating the prevention benefit. Prioritizing target populations using an empirically derived cut-off based on a multivariate risk score will result in greater benefit and efficiency compared to risk factor targets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".