Concordance of retinopathy and nephropathy over time in Type 1 diabetes: an analysis of data from the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Little is known about the dynamic relationship over time between diabetic retinopathy and nephropathy. Thus, we sought to evaluate the concordance over time of retinopathy and nephropathy in patients with Type 1 diabetes during the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. METHODS: This analysis was conducted in patients with Type 1 diabetes participating in the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. Only participants with urinary albumin excretion rate < 40 mg/24 h were included in the analysis (n = 1365). We evaluated the relationship between the progression of retinopathy and the development of nephropathy over a mean 6.5 years of follow-up. Progression of retinopathy was defined by 3-step change in Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study score on consecutive annual evaluations. Development of nephropathy was defined as incidence of urinary albumin excretion rate ≥ 40 mg/24 h on annual evaluation. RESULTS: Over a mean 6.5 years of follow-up, the incidence of progression of retinopathy was higher in those who developed nephropathy than in those who did not (36.2 vs. 13.4%; P < 0.001). The development of nephropathy independently increased the risk for progression of retinopathy (hazard ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.23-2.13, P = 0.001), after adjustment for age, gender, diabetes duration, treatment, HbA1c , BMI, HDL cholesterol and blood pressure. Similarly, the incidence of nephropathy was higher in participants who had progression of retinopathy than in those who did not (40.7 vs. 15.7%; P < 0.001). Furthermore, progression of retinopathy independently increased the risk for development of nephropathy (hazard ratio 1.72, 95% CI 1.30-2.27, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Progression of retinopathy and development of nephropathy each increase the risk for incidence of the other, independent of established risk factors for microvascular complications, supporting the notion of a shared aetiologic basis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".