MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Very high and increasing incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada

2008· article· en· W2094579075 on OpenAlexaffabout
LA Newhook, Marie‐Elaine Grant, Scott Sloka, Mohammad Enamul Hoque, Andrew D. Paterson, Dawn Hagerty, Joseph Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Diabetes · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDiabetes and associated disorders
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoJaneway Children's Health and Rehabilitation CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Diabetes mellitusType 2 Diabetes MellitusType 1 diabetesInternal medicineDemographyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To determine the incidence of type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) among children aged 0-14 yr inclusive in the Canadian province of Newfoundland and Labrador (NL). METHODS: Prospective and retrospective cohort study of the incidence of T1DM in children aged 0-14 yr from 1987 to 2005. Identified cases during this time period were ascertained from several sources and verified using the capture-recapture technique. RESULTS: Over the study period, 732 children aged 0-14 yr were diagnosed with T1DM. The incidence of T1DM in this population over the period 1987-2005 inclusive was 35.08 per 100,000 (95% confidence interval: 32.54, 37.62). The incidence over this period increased linearly at the rate of 0.78 per 100 000 per year. There was a significant difference between the incidence of 31.61 per 100,000 for boys in the 0-4-yr age-group and 19.05 per 100,000 for girls in the 0-4-yr age-group (p = 0.001). The incidence was very high throughout the entire province. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The province of NL has one of the highest incidences of T1DM reported worldwide. The incidence is increasing over the 19-yr study period.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.951

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric DiabetesSame topicDiabetes and associated disordersFrench-language works237,207