Epidemiological Trends in the Morbidity and Mortality Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in South Korea Between 2009 and 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of this study was to study the epidemiological trends in morbidity rate (MbR) and mortality rate (MR) of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) by International Classification of Diseases (Codes of ICD: E11.0-E11.9) among adults in Korea (Republic of) between 2009 and 2012. Methods: Raw data analyzed in this study were obtained from the website of “the Statistics Data on the Morbidity and Mortality of Diabetes” of the Annual Report of the Korea Center for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) and the Korea Statistics Promotion Institute (KSPI) between 2009 and 2012. Results: There were a total of 5,975 nationwide morbidity cases (MCs) with respect to T2DM, with an MbR of 10.0% in 2009, while there were a total of 4,608 MCs with an MbR of 9.9% in 2012; the MbR of T2DM decreased slightly from 2009 to 2012. Moreover, there were a total of 6,293 nationwide case-fatalities (CFs) with an MR of 20.3 per 100,000 populations in 2009, while there were a total of 8,132 CFs with an MR of 24.5 in 2012; the MR of T2DM increased (P < 0.01). The MbRs (%) of T2DM in both males and females were not changed significantly between 2009 and 2012, while the MR in both males and females had significantly increased in T2DM from 2009 to 2012 (P < 0.01). However, in the 60 - 69 years old age group, the MbR of 2012 was significantly decreased than in 2009 (P < 0.01). Trends in CF (%) and MR (100,000 populations) of T2DM were compared with respect to the 10 key classifications of ICD (E11.0-E11.9) between 2009 and 2012 as follows: T2DM with coma, renal, peripheral circulatory and multiple complications tended to increase in 2012 than in 2009, while T2DM with ketoacidosis, other specified, and unspecified complications were decreased, respectively. Conclusion: To counter the increasing morbidity of T2DM and its related mortality in Korea, multidirectional efforts including lifestyle modification should be mandatory features of future public health policy. J Endocrinol Metab. 2015;5(6):328-332 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jem322e
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".