Comparing knowledge of diabetes mellitus among rural and urban diabetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was carried out to assess the awareness of diabetes mellitus among rural and urban diabetics. After analyzing the awareness level of both populations, the urban diabetics were found to be more educated about diabetes. A 25-question survey was used to judge the awareness level of diabetes mellitus. A total of 240 diabetics were surveyed, 120 each from rural and urban areas. The mean awareness among the rural population was 13 (SD+/-2) correct answers out of a possible 25. Similarly, in the case of the urban diabetics the mean awareness was 18 (SD+/-2) correct answers. The survey was conducted on randomly chosen diabetics belonging to Lahore and Faisalabad, (urban areas), as well as Habibabad, Haveli Koranga and Baba Kanwal (rural areas). The results emphasize the interrelation between demography and awareness of diabetes mellitus. The rural diabetics are far less knowledgeable about diabetes mellitus, its management and its complications. Thus, there is an urgent need to improve the awareness level of diabetes mellitus in rural areas. Doing so will give rise to a healthier workforce and a lessened economic burden on Pakistan.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".