Impact of diabetes on healthcare costs in a population‐based cohort: a cost analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To estimate the healthcare costs attributable to diabetes in Ontario, Canada using a propensity-matched control design and health administrative data from the perspective of a single-payer healthcare system. METHODS: Incident diabetes cases among adults in Ontario were identified from the Ontario Diabetes Database between 2004 and 2012 and matched 1:3 to control subjects without diabetes identified in health administrative databases on the basis of sociodemographics and propensity score. Using a comprehensive source of administrative databases, direct per-person costs (Canadian dollars 2012) were calculated. A cost analysis was performed to calculate the attributable costs of diabetes; i.e. the difference of costs between patients with diabetes and control subjects without diabetes. RESULTS: The study sample included 699 042 incident diabetes cases. The costs attributable to diabetes were greatest in the year after diagnosis [C$3,785 (95% CI 3708, 3862) per person for women and C$3,826 (95% CI 3751, 3901) for men], increasing substantially for older age groups and patients who died during follow-up. After accounting for baseline comorbidities, attributable costs were primarily incurred through inpatient acute hospitalizations, physician visits and prescription medications and assistive devices. CONCLUSIONS: The excess healthcare costs attributable to diabetes are substantial and pose a significant clinical and public health challenge. This burden is an important consideration for decision-makers, particularly given increasing concern over the sustainability of the healthcare system, aging population structure and increasing prevalence of diabetic risk factors, such as obesity.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".