Diabetes Screening in Canada (DIASCAN) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of undiagnosed diabetes and glucose intolerance in individuals > or =40 years of age who contacted their family physician for routine care. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The study used a stratified randomized selection of family physicians across Canada that was proportional to provincial and urban/rural populations based on Statistics Canada Census data (1996). Consecutive patients > or =40 years of age were screened for diabetes. If a casual fingerprick blood glucose was >5.5 mmol/l, the patient returned for a fasting venous blood glucose test. If the fasting blood glucose was 6.1-6.9 mmol/l, a 2-h 75-g post-glucose load venous blood glucose was obtained. Results of these tests were used to classify patients in diagnostic categories. RESULTS: Data were available for 9,042 patients. Previously undiagnosed diabetes was discovered in 2.2% of the patients, and new glucose intolerance was found in an additional 3.5% of patients. Overall, 16.4% of patients had previously known diabetes. The decrease in fasting plasma glucose criterion from 7.8 to 7.0 mmol/l resulted in a 2.2% versus a 1.6% prevalence of new diabetes. Several risk factors were reported in a significantly greater proportion of patients with new glucose intolerance and either new and known diabetes compared with the normal glucose tolerance group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Routine screening for diabetes by family physicians is justified in patients > or =40 years of age, given the finding of previously undiagnosed diabetes in 2.2% of these patients and newly diagnosed glucose intolerance in an additional 3.5% of these patients. Another 16.4% of primary care patients > or =40 years of age have known diabetes. This has important implications regarding health resources and physician education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".