Incidence, coronary risk profile and angiographic characteristics of prediabetic and diabetic patients in a population with ischemic heart disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, the threshold of fasting blood glucose indicating diabetes mellitus was lowered to 7.00 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) and the term 'impaired fasting glucose' (IFG; fasting blood glucose ranging from 6.11 mmol/L to 6.99 mmol/L or from 110 mg/dL to 126 mg/dL) was introduced to define a prediabetic state. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of the above states in a Canadian population with suspected coronary artery disease and to compare their risk profiles and angiographic status to normoglycemic subjects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Revision of the database of 1108 consecutive patients (793 males and 315 females; mean age 58.1+/-9.8 years) undergoing clinical, biochemical and elective angiographic studies because of suspected coronary artery disease. RESULTS: One third of the patients had either IFG (8.5%), or were diabetics (24.2%). Unlike the 747 normoglycemic patients, both IFG (n=94) and diabetic (n=267) subjects showed an insulin resistance profile, with abdominal obesity, and dislipidemia characterized by high triglycerides in the presence of low high density lipoprotein-cholesterol and high normal or elevated blood pressure. Both prediabetics and diabetics had a significantly higher homeostatic model assessment insulin resistance index than normoglycemics (P<0.0001), the index also being higher for diabetics than for prediabetics (P<0.0001). Coronary atherosclerosis was documented in most patients of the three groups and was significantly more severe in diabetics than in IFG patients (P=0.0359) or normoglycemics (P=0.0069), with no differences between the former two groups. CONCLUSIONS: As expected, the new definitions identify more patients with impaired homeostasis than earlier criteria. IFG patients have similar coronary risk profile as diabetics, suggesting the need for similar coronary precautions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".