Population attributable fractions for Type 2 diabetes: an examination of multiple risk factors including symptoms of depression and anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Population attributable fractions (PAFs) are frequently used to quantify the proportion of Type 2 diabetes cases due to single risk factors, an approach which may result in an overestimation of their individual contributions. This study aimed to examine Type 2 diabetes incidence associated with multiple risk factor combinations, including the metabolic syndrome, behavioural factors, and specifically, depression and anxiety. METHODS: Using data from the population-based HUNT cohort, we examined incident diabetes in 36,161 Norwegian adults from 1995 to 2008. PAFs were calculated using Miettinen's case-based formula, using relative risks estimated from multivariate regression models. RESULTS: Overall, the studied risk factors accounted for 50.5% of new diabetes cases (78.2% in men and 47.0% in women). Individuals exposed to both behavioural and metabolic factors were at highest risk of diabetes onset (PAF = 22.9%). Baseline anxiety and depression contributed a further 13.6% of new cases to this combination. Men appeared to be particularly vulnerable to the interaction between metabolic, behavioural and psychological risk factors. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the importance of risk factor clustering in diabetes onset, and is the first that we know of to quantify the excess fraction of incident diabetes associated with psychological risk factor interactions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".