Glucose tolerance in Canadian and French cystic fibrosis adult patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cystic fibrosis (CF)-related diabetes is associated with increased mortality. We analysed the clinical and glycemic profiles of two cohorts of patients treated according to the same guidelines in France and Canada. To investigate incidence differences in phenotypic and glucose abnormalities and to explore the evolution over a 4-year follow-up period, two cohorts of 224 Canadian and 147 French adult CF patients (≥18 years) without treated CF-related diabetes (CFRD) were followed over a 4 year period. In each of these groups, we investigated the longitudinal relationship between glucose tolerance and pulmonary function. An annual 2-hour oral glucose tolerance test was performed: fasting blood glucose (G0) and 2-h blood glucose (G2) were measured. Patients were classified at inclusion according to their glucose tolerance status: Normal glucose tolerant, abnormal glucose tolerant or de novo CFRD. Age, sex ratio and proportion of F508del homozygous patients were not statistically different between both cohorts. Canadian patients had better pulmonary function (median %FEV1 (IQR): 71.0 (55.0–82.0) vs. 64.0 (40.0–78.0), p < 0.001) and greater body mass index (BMI; median BMI in kg/m2) (IQR) 21.1 (19.5–22.8) vs. 19.9 (18.4–21.4), p < 0.001). Glucose values: G0 (5.4 (5.0–5.9) vs. 4.8 (4.5–5.1) mmol/L, p < 0.001) and G2 (7.6 (5.8–9.7) vs. 6.5 (5.2–8.5) mmol/L, p = 0.001) were higher in the Canadian cohort translating into a higher incidence of de novo CFRD diagnosis (19.2 vs. 9.8%, p = 0.003). Decline in FEV1 over time was not different between patients according to glucose tolerance groups. Despite higher glucose levels and incidence of de novo CFRD, Canadian CF patients have a better lung function and a higher BMI than French patients. In spite of these differences between the cohorts, the decline in FEV1 in patients with abnormal glucose tolerance is similar between these groups.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".