Nonadherence in type 2 diabetes: practical considerations for interpreting the literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rising prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a serious threat to human health and the viability of many health care systems around the world. Although several prescription medications can play a vital role in controlling symptoms and preventing complications, non-adherence to these therapies is highly prevalent and has been linked to increases in morbidity, mortality, and health care costs. Although a vast array of significant adherence predictors has been identified, the ability to explain or predict non-adherence with known risk-factors remains poor. Further, the definitions, outcomes, and various measures used in the non-adherence literature can be misleading for the unfamiliar reviewer. In this narrative review, a practical overview of important considerations for interpreting adherence endpoints and measures is discussed. Also, an organizational framework is proposed to consider published adherence interventions. This framework may allow for a unique appreciation into areas of limited knowledge and thus highlights targets for future research.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it