Antipsychotic medication and the incidence of Type II Diabetes among Quebec welfare recipients, 1993-2004
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To compare the risks of developing type II diabetes after initiation of different antipsychotic drugs. Methods: Adult welfare recipients in Quebec who filled a prescription for an antipsychotic(s) drug between 1993 and 2004 were included in this study. Exposure was measured across 6 antipsychotic drug groups: clozapine, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, low-potency typical drugs and other typical drugs. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate the risk of diabetes after exposure, adjusting for age at study entry, sex, obesity before drug initiation, schizophrenia and entry year. Results: Risk of diabetes associated with one more standard monthly dose was significantly higher for: clozapine (RR 1.14 (95% C.I.: 1.04, 1.24)); olanzapine (1.09 (1.04, 1.14)) and low potency typicals (1.08 (1.03, 1.13)). Conclusions: Consistent with many prior studies, clozapine, olanzapine and low potency typical drugs pose a higher risk for diabetes than other antipsychotic drugs. This risk also increases with dosage.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".