Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes is a heterogeneous disease characterized by varying degrees of insulin resistance, insulin deficiency, genetic and environmental contributions. With increasing evidence of individual variation in response to treatments, personalizing both the therapy and the treatment target to the individual should produce improved outcomes. Diabetes is a growing global health challenge, with an estimated 451 million people affected worldwide in 2015, expected to rise to 642 million by 2040.1 At least 90% have Type 2 diabetes; for these patients, the risk of developing hypertension is doubled and cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death. Over the last 30 years, advances in understanding the underlying mechanisms contributing to this cardiovascular burden in the diabetic population have led to interventions focussing on aggressive control of blood pressure, lipids, and blood glucose. In most developed countries, as the number of people living with diabetes has reached epidemic proportions, the routine review and management of patients with Type 2 diabetes has shifted from hospitals to primary care, with the aim of providing greater continuity of care while reducing costs. In this issue, Grenier et al . report from the Diabetes Mellitus Status in Canada (DM-SCAN) Survey. Using data collected from primary care physicians across Canada, the control of cardiovascular risk factors in Type 2 diabetes patients was compared in those with and without coronary artery disease (CAD). Among 4994 patients, target levels for all three risk factors of blood pressure, lipids, and glucose control were achieved in only 15.4% of those with CAD and 12.0% for patients without. Similar poor attainment has been reported from the USA, where 14.3% achieved all three targets … [↵][1]*Corresponding author. Tel: +44 20 7363 8812, Email: susan.gelding{at}bartshealth.nhs.uk [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".