Regular Visits to a Diabetes Clinic Were Associated with Lower Magnitude of Visual Disability and Diabetic Retinopathy—A Hospital-Based Historical Cohort Study in Yemen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We associated regularity in visits to a diabetes clinic with the presence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and visual disabilities. METHODS: This historical cohort study was conducted in 2004. The physician reported details of diabetes mellitus (DM), hypertension, and other illness. The ophthalmologist examined eyes and noted visual acuity, DR, and other ocular morbidities. We calculated the relative risk (RR) of different complications of diabetes. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 228 patients (114 in each group, one that attended diabetes clinics regularly [group A] and one that had irregular attendance [group B]). DR was found in 47 (41.2%) and 68 (61.4%) patients, respectively. The risk of DR was significantly higher in group B (RR = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 to 2.18). The severity of DR was also positively associated with irregularity in clinic visits (x(2) = 33.56, degrees of freedom = 5, P = 0.000003). The risk of bilateral blindness (RR = 4.0, 95% CI 1.38 to 11.6) and low vision disability (RR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.47) were higher in group B. The duration of diabetes and the regularity in clinic visits were the predictors of DR. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of DR and visual disabilities among patients with diabetes is associated with irregular attendance at diabetes clinics. The regularity of medical visits seems to be a proxy indicator of better primary prevention of eye complications of DM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".