Dyslipidemia: The untreated metabolic dysfunction in people with type 2 diabetes in Latin America. ARETAEUS study outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess oral antihyperglycemic agents (OAHA) and/or statin treatment initiation in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and time from diagnosis to both types of treatment initiation and intensification. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: -test for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables. The starting time of each therapy (OAHA and statins, separately) was assessed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. RESULTS: At diagnosis, patients' mean age was 53 years; 44% had hypertension, 42% were obese, and 23% had dyslipidemia. During the 2-year follow-up, 95% of patients received OAHAs but only 29% of those eligible for statins received this prescription. Mean ± SD and median (Q1, Q3) time to first OAHA was 59 ± 141 days and 1 (1, 31) day, respectively, and 230 ± 232 days and 132 (30, 406) days, respectively, for a statin. During follow-up, 51-53% of patients with HbA1c/FPG values above target did not intensify hyperglycemia treatment. CONCLUSION: Dyslipidemia treatment in patients with T2D was delayed despite its known deleterious effect on atherosclerosis development and β-cell mass/function. Anti-hyperglycemic treatment was not intensified when targets were not attained. This prescriptive inertia needs to be corrected because attainment of HbA1c treatment goals becomes more difficult, favoring the development of diabetes complications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".