Pulmonary Pathology Among Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Restrictive lung pathology was reported in the previous meta-analysis among patients with Type 2 Diabetes mellitus (T2DM) which is date back to 2010. OBJECTIVE: To see the effect of T2DM on pulmonary functions through updated systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCE: PubMed. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language case-control or cross-sectional studies, published between 1 January 2010 to 31 August 2018. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTION: T2DM and non-diabetic subjects were compared for at least one of the pulmonary function variables i.e. Forced expiratory volume in 1st second (FEV1), % FEV1, Forced vital capacity (FVC), % FVC and % FEV1/FVC. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Methodological quality of the study was assessed using Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Meta-analysis was done using Review Manager 5.3 (RevMan 5.3) and meta-regression was conducted using R statistical software. RESULTS: We selected 22 articles that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results reveal that among patients with T2DM all variables were reduced except %FEV1/FVC which shows statistically nonsignificant results with P=0.46. This confirms that T2DM patients have a restrictive type of lung pathology. LIMITATION: Only articles from the PubMed database were included. Conclusion and Implications of Key Findings: This review affirms the existing evidence of restrictive pathology among patients with T2DM. The future study could be conducted to see the effect of various rehabilitation protocols on pulmonary function among patients with T2DM.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".