Gender: does it have role has a role in glycaemic control in Caucasians with wellcontrolled type 2 diabetes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Type 2 diabetes is costly to manage and thus it is important to know if management of blood glucose and HbA1c are meeting clinical targets in both men and women. There is conflicting published data on the gender equality of blood glucose and HbA1c management in type 2 diabetics. Objective: The purpose of this work was to review the literature on gender equality in blood glucose management and to test the hypothesis that management of blood glucose and HbA1c would meet clinical targets in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, irrespective of gender in well controlled Caucasian type 2 diabetic patients. Design, Setting and Participants: Fasting serum insulin and insulin sensitivity levels were determined in order to assist in the explanation of the glucose and HbA1c results in people with diabetes. Patients were asked to give a fasting blood sample on each of two occasions three months apart. Results: There were no differences between males and females in each of fasting serum glucose (FSG) and HbA1c levels as well as fasting serum insulin concentrations and in insulin sensitivity at visit 1 or 2. However, each of FSG and HbA1c levels were slightly higher than clinical targets. Modestly elevated serum insulin and lower insulin sensitivity were consistent with the FSG and HbA1c levels. This contrasts with some of the existing literature pointing out the need for a much larger study to be done in Cape Breton. Conclusion: It is concluded that blood glucose management among people with well controlled type 2 diabetes in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia may be close to clinical targets irrespective of gender. A further lowering of HbA1c and FSG may be in order. However, this was only a very small study and a much larger one would answer whether there is gender equality in FSG and HbA1c among persons with well controlled type 2 diabetes on Cape Breton Island.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".