MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence and determinants of diabetes mellitus among the M�tis of western Canada

2000· article· en· W2076719791 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sharon Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusEtiologyMedicineLogistic regressionEpidemiologyObesityDemographyHumGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes and its complications are major contributors to morbidity and mortality among Canada's Aboriginal populations. The epidemiology of diabetes among the Métis has not yet been investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of diabetes among the Métis, to identify diabetes risk factors, and to test hypotheses related to diabetes etiology. The source of the data for this research was the Aboriginal Peoples Survey (APS), a postcensal survey conducted by Statistics Canada in 1991. Study populations included the APS self-identified Métis and North American Indians of western Canada. Univariate and multivariate analyses were done to estimate the prevalence of diabetes and to identify diabetes risk factors. Multiple logistic regression was performed to test etiological hypotheses regarding the determinants of diabetes. The crude prevalence of diabetes among the Métis (6%) was slightly less than that reported by North American Indians (7%) and twice the general rate for Canada (3%). Diabetes was significantly associated with age, sex, obesity, and level of education. The APS dataset was useful in establishing diabetes as a significant problem among the Métis. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 12:542-551, 2000. Copyright 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Human BiologySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207