MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clinical Characteristics of Diabetic Patients with Diabetic Retinopathy

2013· article· en· W2090043967 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arnon Blum, Dorina Socea

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutritional Therapeutics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRetinal Imaging and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetinopathyDiabetic retinopathyDiabetes mellitusBody mass indexInternal medicineRetinalOphthalmologyGastroenterologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Proliferative diabetic retinopathy is a consequence of retinal ischemia due to capillary occlusion resulting from damage to the retinal endothelium, and is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Methods: We randomly assigned seventy three patients with DM type II and grouped them according to their retinal proliferative disease (Group A - 25 patients [12 males], mean age 62.8±10.8 years, no diabetic retinopathy; Group B - 25 patients [19 males], mean age 61.9±9.4 years, non-proliferative retinopathy; and Group C - 23 patients [13 males], mean age 59.2±10.3 years, proliferative retinopathy). Twenty three healthy subjects (14 males; mean age 44.3±11.6 years) served as the control group. We studied their retinal vasculopathy status, height, weight, body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, age, endothelial function (flow mediated diameter [FMD%] percent change) and their peripheral artery disease (ankle brachial index [ABI]). Results: A significant difference was found between the duration of length of DM type II between patients without retinopathy [group A] (9±6 years) and patients with non-proliferative retinopathy [group B] (17±9 years) (p=0.001). No difference in length of diabetes was observed between patients with non-proliferative retinopathy [group B] and patients with proliferative retinopathy [group C] (19±6 years) (p=0.30). A significant difference was observed in HgA1C% between group A (7.1±2.7%) and group B (8.5±1.5%) (p=0.02). No such difference was noted between group B and group C (8.5±1.6%) (p=0.98). Only 6 patients (out of 23) used insulin treatment in group A compared with 16 group B (out of 25) and 17 in group C (out of 25) (p=0.004). All three groups of diabetic patients were older (62.8±10.8, 61.9±9.4, 59.2±10.3 years, respectively) than volunteers (44.3±11.6 years) (p≤0.001), had a lower stature (1.65±0.09, 1.68±0.07, 1.65±0.09 meters, respectively) compared with controls (1.73±0.08 meters) (p≤0.05), had a larger waist circumference (110.04±14.17, 108.88±13.00, 109.30±13.49 cm, respectively) than controls (93.43±11.66 cm) (p≤0.001), and larger BMIs (30±6, 29±4, 30±5) compared with controls (25±4) (p≤0.001). All diabetic patients had severe endothelial dysfunction measured by FMD% (-1.9±7.4, -3.3±9.2, -3.1±6.6 %, respectively) compared with the control group (16.5±7.5%) (p≤0.001). ABI was within normal range in all patient (0.97±0.18, 1.14±0.24, 1.03±0.28, respectively), and in volunteers (1.06±0.18) (p≥0.05). There was no significant change within the 3 subgroups of diabetic retinopathy patients in age, height, weight, BMI, or FMD%. Conclusions: All patients with DM type II had severe endothelial dysfunction, higher BMIs, lower statures, larger waist circumferences; however they all had normal ABIs

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.297
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nutritional TherapeuticsSame topicRetinal Imaging and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207