MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092505092 · doi:10.2337/dc08-0706

Increased Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Young Women Following Gestational Diabetes Mellitus

2008· article· en· W2092505092 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Baiju R. Shah, Ravi Retnakaran, Gillian L. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Toronto
FundersBanting and Best Diabetes Centre, University of TorontoCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusGestational diabetesDiseasePregnancyInternal medicineObstetricsPediatricsGestationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) following pregnancy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: All women aged 20-49 years with live births between April 1994 and March 1997 in Ontario, Canada, were identified. Women with GDM were matched with 10 women without GDM and were followed for CVD. RESULTS: The matched cohorts included 8,191 women with GDM and 81,262 women without GDM. Mean age at entry was 31 years, and median follow-up was 11.5 years. The hazard ratio for CVD events was 1.71 (95% CI 1.08-2.69). After adjustment for subsequent type 2 diabetes, the hazard ratio was attenuated (1.13 [95% CI 0.67-1.89]). CONCLUSIONS: Young women with GDM had a substantially increased risk for CVD compared with women without GDM. Much of this increased risk was attributable to subsequent development of type 2 diabetes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations487
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207