Age at Transition from Pediatric to Adult Care Has No Relationship with Mortality for Childhood-Onset Type 1 Diabetes in Japan: Diabetes Epidemiology Research International (DERI) Mortality Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To follow up Japanese patients with type 1 diabetes for a maximum of 40 years to examine when they transitioned from pediatric care to adult care and to explore whether the attending physician, i.e., pediatrician or internist, was associated with prognosis. METHODS: Participants consisted of 1,299 patients who had been diagnosed as having type 1 diabetes at less than 15 years old between 1965 and 1979 identified through two nationwide surveys. Patients were classified as having received either pediatric care or adult care at the age of 15 and 30, and were compared for differences in mortality associated with the attending physician. RESULTS: The attending physicians were confirmed for a total of 1,093 patients at the age of 15. Of these patients, 43.8% and 40.3% received pediatric care and adult care, respectively. Of the 569 patients receiving pediatric care, 74.2%, 56.6%, 53.4%, and 51.3% continued with pediatric care at 20, 30, 40, and 50 years old, respectively. The attending physicians (pediatrician or internist) at the age of 15 and 30 had no significant impact on their survival (P = 0. 892, 0.411, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients who had received pediatric care at the age of 15 continued to receive pediatric care even after the age of 30, suggesting that their transition was far from smooth, while the attending physician at the age of both 15 and 30 was not a prognostic factor for mortality. Thus, the timing for transition to adult care in these patients has no relationship with mortality in Japan.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".