Measuring quality of diabetes care by linking health care system administrative databases with laboratory data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic complications of diabetes can be reduced through optimal glycemic and lipid control as evaluated through measurement of glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). We aimed to produce measures of quality of diabetes care in Saskatchewan and to identify sub-groups at particular risk of developing complications. FINDINGS: Prevalent adult cases of diabetes in 2005/06 were identified from administrative databases and linked with A1C and LDL-C tests measured in centralized laboratories. A1C results were performed in 33,927 of 50,713 (66.9%) diabetes cases identified in Saskatchewan, and LDL-C results were performed in 12,031 of 24,207 (49.7%) cases identified within the province's two largest health regions. The target A1C of <= 7.0% and the target LDL-C of <2.5 mmol/L were achieved in 48.3% and 45.1% of diabetes cases respectively. The proportions were lower among those who were female, First Nations, non-urban, younger and in lower income quintiles. The same groups experienced poorer glycemic control (exception females), and poorer lipid control (exception First Nations people). Among non-Aboriginal people, younger diabetic females were least likely to receive lipid lowering agents. CONCLUSIONS: Linkage of laboratory with administrative data is an effective method of assessing quality of diabetes care on a population basis and to identify sub-groups requiring particular attention. We found that less than 50% of Saskatchewan people with diabetes achieved optimal glycemic and lipid control. Disparities were most evident among First Nations people and young women. The indicators described can be used to provide standardized information that would support quality improvement initiatives.
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 | 0.023 | 0.065 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".