A systematic review of risk factors for cataract in type 2 diabetes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a risk factor for cataract development. With T2D prevalence increasing, the burden of cataract-associated vision loss will also increase. We aimed to characterise cataract diabetes-specific risk factors to assist prevention and management strategies. As part of a systematic review, two investigators independently searched online electronic databases according to a predetermined protocol for relevant published data to end-March 2018. Studies were included if they were longitudinal with ≥100 participants, diabetes was defined, a description of cataract assessment was provided, data were from humans, and the reports were in English. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and GRADE. Of 5255 publications identified, 19 from 13 study populations were included. The overall risk of bias was low. There was between-study variability. Age and glycaemic control were consistently associated with cataract development in T2D, but blood pressure, diabetes duration, sex, and aspirin use were not. Serum lipids and smoking remain possible risk factors, but available data are inconclusive. Glycaemia is the only consistent modifiable risk factor amongst a range of candidate variables. Due to the lack of consistency of the available evidence, and since mortality associated with T2D is declining with the likelihood of increased cataract-associated vision loss, additional well-conducted longitudinal studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors that could prevent or delay cataract formation.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it