Bibliographic record
Abstract
DIABETES is common in elderly persons. By the age of 75, approximately 25% of the U.S. population will be afflicted with this illness (1). Because of its associated complications, diabetes in the aged has a significant impact on quality of life (2). Therefore, further investigation is timely. Three articles in this issue of the Journal address important aspects of this burgeoning health issue. In the first article, Corsonello and colleagues (3) highlight the prevalence of concealed renal failure in elderly patients with diabetes and emphasize the associated increased risk for adverse drug reactions. Adverse drug reactions are the commonest iatrogenic complication in elderly medical inpatients (4,5). The recently published Canadian Adverse Events Study (5) demonstrated that the most common adverse drug reactions in elderly persons are renal toxicity and inappropriate dosing of medications based on a lack of understanding of impairments in underlying renal function. It has been known for many years that renal function declines with age and that serum creatinine is a relatively poor marker of renal function because of decreases in muscle mass (6). Corsonello and colleagues used a nomogram to calculate glomerular filtration rate (GFR), and demonstrated that concealed renal dysfunction is present in nearly 20% of older patients with diabetes. These patients had a substantially increased risk of adverse drug reactions. This study suggests that, if we are to substantially reduce the risk of iatrogenic events in hospital, we should focus on elderly patients with diabetes. Our efforts should be particularly directed to patients who are taking larger numbers of medications because these are the patients most at risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".