Did Publication of a Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendation to Screen for Type 2 Diabetes in Women With Gestational Diabetes Change Practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether women with previous gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) were screened postpartum for type 2 diabetes according to the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) guidelines. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The 1998 CDA guidelines recommend that all women diagnosed with GDM be screened postpartum for type 2 diabetes using a 2-h 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The impact of and compliance with this expert opinion-based recommendation is unknown. All women who delivered at the Ottawa Hospital in 1997 (pre-guideline) and 2000 (post-guideline) with confirmed GDM were identified. Using population-based administrative databases, we determined the proportion of these women who had an OGTT, serum glucose test, or glycated hemoglobin (GHb) test in the first postpartum year. Women who had not undergone any blood work were excluded. RESULTS: There were 131 women in 1997 and 123 women in 2000 with confirmed GDM. Of these, only 69 women in 1997 and 52 women in 2000 had blood work recorded in the database. None of these women had an OGTT performed in either period. We found a significant increase in the measurement of serum glucose (50 women pre-guideline [72.1%], 48 women post-guideline [92.3%], P < 0.05) and GHb (8 women pre-guideline [11.6%], 20 women post-guideline [38.5%], P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In our region, physicians are not following the CDA recommendations to screen women with GDM postpartum with an OGTT. However, we did find a significant increase in the measurement of serum glucose and GHb. Publication of expert opinion-based guidelines did not change the postpartum use of an OGTT in these women but may have increased the use of less reliable screening tests for 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 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 | 0.094 | 0.497 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".