Association between diabetic eye disease and other complications of diabetes: Implications for care. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the associations between diabetic retinopathy (DR) and the common micro- and macrovascular complications of diabetes mellitus, and how these could potentially affect clinical practice. A structured search of the PubMed database identified studies of patients with diabetes that assessed the presence or development of DR in conjunction with other vascular complications of diabetes. From 70 included studies, we found that DR is consistently associated with other complications of diabetes, with the severity of DR linked to a higher risk of the presence of, or of developing, other micro- and macrovascular complications. In particular, DR increases the likelihood of having or developing nephropathy and is also a strong predictor of stroke and cardiovascular disease, and progression of DR significantly increases this risk. Proliferative DR is a strong risk factor for peripheral arterial disease, which carries a risk of lower extremity ulceration and amputation. Additionally, our findings suggest that a patient with DR has an overall worse prognosis than a patient without DR. In conclusion, this analysis highlights the need for a coordinated and collaborative approach to patient management. Given the widespread use of DR screening programmes that can be performed outside of an ophthalmology office, and the overall cost-effectiveness of DR screening, the presence and severity of DR can be a means of identifying patients at increased risk for micro- and macrovascular complications, enabling earlier detection, referral and intervention with the aim of reducing morbidity and mortality among patients with diabetes. Healthcare professionals involved in the management of diabetes should encourage regular DR screening.
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 | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".