MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors associated with deterioration of life expectancy in diabetic patients with chronic renal failure: a review

2014· review· en· W2085063988 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Farhat Al-Naabi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLife expectancyDiabetes mellitusQuality of life (healthcare)NephropathyIntensive care medicineComplicationDiseaseNeglectPopulationDiabetic nephropathyKidney diseaseHeart failureInternal medicineEndocrinologyEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes mellitus is a chronic disease, linked with elevated levels of blood glucose. When diabetes goes uncontrolled, complications such as, coronary heart disease, neuropathy, retinopathy and nephropathy may develop. This will reduce life quality and expectancy. Proper management of the disease by knowing the factors that may alter body homeostasis will play a major role in improving life quality, overcome complication and reduces expenses at a national level. As the prevalence of diabetes in Oman increases and more that 14% of the population are affected. It is important to emphasize more research on diabetes complication associated with renal problems and how to improve life quality. The objective of this review is to draw attention to the major factors associated which deterioration in life expectancy in diabetes patients which chronic renal failure. It was found out that most of complications among the groups were due to lake of awareness and neglect of the consequences of not following the diet therapy and/or medical description. These problems are specially found in elder patients who are diabetics for more than 10 years. There is still a need for an appropriate intervention intensive health education to support this high risk group.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207