Cardiovascular Risk and Risk Factor Management in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With recent changes in the United Kingdom's clinical practice for diabetes mellitus care, contemporary estimates of sex disparities in cardiovascular risk and risk factor management are needed. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to hospital and death records for people in England, we identified 79 985 patients with incident type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) between 2006 to 2013 matched to 386 547 patients without diabetes mellitus. Sex-stratified Cox models were used to assess cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: Compared with women without T2DM, women with T2DM had a higher cardiovascular event risk (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% confidence interval, 1.12-1.28]) with similar corresponding data in men (hazard ratio, 1.12 [1.06-1.19]), leading to a nonsignificant higher relative risk in women (risk ratio, 1.07 [0.98-1.17]). However, some important sex differences in the management of risk factors were observed. Compared with men with T2DM, women with T2DM were more likely to be obese, hypertensive, and have hypercholesterolemia, but were less likely to be prescribed lipid-lowering medication and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, especially if they had cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with men developing T2DM, women with T2DM do not have a significantly higher relative increase in cardiovascular risk, but ongoing sex disparities in prescribing should prompt heightened efforts to improve the standard and equity of diabetes mellitus care in women and men.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".