Incidental findings of elevated random plasma glucose in the ED as a prompt for outpatient diabetes screening: a retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether random plasma glucose (RPG) collected from patients without known impaired glucose metabolism (IGM) in the emergency department (ED) is a useful screen for diabetes or prediabetes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: ED of a Canadian teaching hospital over 1 month. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients in ED with RPG over 7 mmol/L were recruited for participation. Exclusion criteria included known diabetes, hospital admission and inability to consent. Participants were contacted by mail, encouraged to follow-up with their family physician (FP) for further testing and subsequently interviewed. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients in the ED with RPG over 7 mmol/L and no previous diagnosis of IGM who were diagnosed with diabetes or prediabetes after secondary testing by FP with oral glucose tolerance test or fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Secondary outcomes included patient characteristics (age, gender, body mass index and language) and (2) compliance with advice to seek an appropriate follow-up care. RESULTS: RPG was drawn on approximately one-third (33%, n=1149) of the 3470 patients in the ED in March 2010. RPG over 7 mmol/L was detected in 24% (n=278) of patients, and after first telephone follow-up, 32% (n=88/278) met the inclusion criteria and were advised to seek confirmatory testing. 41% (n=114/278) of patients were excluded for known diabetes. 73% of patients contacted (n=64/88) followed up with their FP. 12.5% (n=11/88) of patients had abnormal FPG, and of these 11% (n=10/88) were encouraged to initiate lifestyle modifications and 1% (n=1/88) was started on an oral hypoglycaemic agent. For 7% (n=6/88) of patients, FP's declined to do follow-up fasting blood work. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated RPG in the ED is useful for identification of patients at risk for IGM and in need of further diabetic screening. Emergency physicians should advise patients with elevated RPG to consider screening for diabetes. For ED screening to be successful, patient education and collaboration with FPs are essential.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".