Review of research grant allocation to psychosocial studies in diabetes research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To estimate and discuss the allocation of diabetes research funds to studies with a psychosocial focus. METHODS: Annual reports and funded-research databases from approximately the last 5 years (if available) were reviewed from the following representative funding organizations, the American Diabetes Association, the Canadian Diabetes Association, Diabetes Australia, Diabetes UK, the Dutch Diabetes Research Foundation and the European Foundation for the Study of Diabetes, in order to estimate the overall proportion of studies allocated research funding that had a psychosocial focus. RESULTS: An estimated mean of 8% of funded studies from our sample were found to have a psychosocial focus. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of funded studies with a psychosocial focus was small, with an estimated mean ratio of 17:1 observed between funded biomedical and psychosocial studies in diabetes research. While several factors may account for this finding, the observation that 90% of funded studies are biomedical may be partly attributable to the methodological orthodoxy of applying biomedical reductionism to understand and treat disease. A more comprehensive and systemic whole-person approach in diabetes research that resembles more closely the complexity of human beings is needed and may lead to improved care for individuals living with diabetes or at risk of diabetes.
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 | 0.064 | 0.405 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".