Transition to Adult Care for Youths With Diabetes Mellitus: Findings From a Universal Health Care System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goals were (1) to describe rates of diabetes mellitus (DM)-related hospitalizations and retinopathy screening before and after transition to adult care and (2) to test whether different methods of transfer of care were associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we included 1507 young adults with DM of >or=5-year duration and tracked these patients until 20 years of age. RESULTS: DM-related hospitalization rates increased from 7.6 to 9.5 cases per 100 patient-years in the 2 years after transition to adult care (P = .03). Previous DM-related hospitalizations, lower income, female gender, and living in areas with low physician supply were associated with higher admission rates. With controlling for all other factors, individuals who were transferred to a new allied health care team with no change in physician were 23% less likely (relative risk: 0.23 [95% confidence interval: 0.05-0.79]) to be hospitalized after the transition than were those transferred to a new physician with either a new or no allied health care team. The rates of eye examinations were stable across the transition to adult care (72% vs 70%; P = .06). Female patients, patients with higher income, and patients with previous eye care were more likely to have an eye care visit after transfer. CONCLUSIONS: During the transition to adult health care, there is increased risk of DM-related hospitalizations, although this may be attenuated in youths for whom there is physician continuity. Eye care visits were not related to transition; however, rates were below evidence-based guideline recommendations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".