Inequalities in glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis according to socio‐economic status and area‐level deprivation in Type 1 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the associations of individual-level as well as area-level socio-economic status and area-level deprivation with glycaemic control, hypoglycaemia and diabetic ketoacidosis in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE was searched to identify relevant cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies published between January 2000 and June 2015. Search results were screened by title, abstract and keywords to identify eligible publications. Decisions on inclusion or exclusion of full texts were made independently by two reviewers. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to estimate the methodological quality of included studies. Quality assessment and extracted data of included studies were synthesized narratively and reported according to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Literature search in Ovid MEDLINE identified 1345 eligible studies. Twenty studies matched our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two articles were additionally identified through hand search. According to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, most of the studies were of average quality. Results on associations of socio-economic status and area-level deprivation with glycaemic control and hypoglycaemia were contradictory between studies. By contrast, lower socio-economic status and higher area-level deprivation were associated with a higher risk for diabetic ketoacidosis in all except one study. CONCLUSIONS: Lower socio-economic status and higher area-level deprivation are associated with a higher risk of experiencing diabetic ketoacidosis in people with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Access to care for socially deprived people needs to be expanded to overcome impairing effects on the course of the condition and to reduce healthcare disparities.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".