Resolution of Asymptomatic Myocardial Ischemia in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in the Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess whether the prevalence of inducible myocardial ischemia increases over time in patients with type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Participants enrolled in the Detection of Ischemia in Asymptomatic Diabetics (DIAD) study underwent repeat adenosine-stress myocardial perfusion imaging 3 years after initial evaluation. Patients with intervening cardiac events or revascularization and those who were unable or unwilling to repeat stress imaging were excluded. RESULTS: Of the initial 522 DIAD patients, 358 had repeat stress imaging (DIAD-2), of whom 71 (20%) had ischemia at enrollment (DIAD-1). Of 287 patients with normal DIAD-1 studies, 259 (90%) remained normal in DIAD-2, whereas 28 (10%) developed new ischemia in DIAD-2. Of the 71 patients with abnormal DIAD-1 studies, 56 (79%) demonstrated resolution of ischemia, whereas 15 (21%) remained abnormal. During this 3-year interval, medical treatment was intensified, with more patients using statins, aspirin, and ACE inhibitors than at baseline. Patients with resolution of ischemia had significantly greater increases in these medications than patients who developed new ischemia (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Thus, the majority of asymptomatic patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrated resolution of ischemia upon repeat stress imaging after 3 years. This resolution was associated with more intensive treatment of cardiovascular risk factors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".