Cardiovascular Outcomes in Framingham Participants With Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We designed this study to explore to what extent the excess risk of cardiovascular events in diabetic individuals is attributable to hypertension. We retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from the Framingham original and offspring cohorts. Of the 1145 Framingham subjects newly diagnosed with diabetes mellitus who did not have a previous history of cardiovascular events, 663 (58%) had hypertension at the time that diabetes mellitus was diagnosed. During 4154 person-years of follow-up, 125 died, and 204 experienced a cardiovascular event. Framingham participants with hypertension at the time of diabetes mellitus diagnosis exhibited higher rates of all-cause mortality (32 versus 20 per 1000 person-years; P<0.001) and cardiovascular events (52 versus 31 per 1000 person-years; P<0.001) compared with normotensive subjects with diabetes mellitus. After adjustment for demographic and clinical covariates, hypertension was associated with a 72% increase in the risk of all-cause death and a 57% increase in the risk of any cardiovascular event in individuals with diabetes mellitus. The population-attributable risk from hypertension in individuals with diabetes mellitus was 30% for all-cause death and 25% for any cardiovascular event (increasing to 44% and 41%, respectively, if the 110 normotensive subjects who developed hypertension during follow-up were excluded from the analysis). In comparison, after adjustment for concurrent hypertension, the population-attributable risk from diabetes mellitus in Framingham subjects was 7% for all-cause mortality and 9% for any cardiovascular disease event. Although diabetes mellitus is associated with increased risks of death and cardiovascular events in Framingham subjects, much of this excess risk is attributable to coexistent hypertension.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".