MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964008112 · doi:10.2337/db19-522-p

522-P: Long-Term Renal Outcomes in Young Onset Type 2 Diabetes

2019· article· en· W2964008112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Timothy Middleton, Steven J. Chadban, Lynda Molyneaux, Mario D’Souza, Maria Constantino, Dennis K. Yue, Margaret McGill, Ted Wu, Stephen M. Twigg, Jencia Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal replacement therapyInternal medicineProportional hazards modelPopulationType 2 diabetesDialysisHazard ratioCohortDiabetes mellitusEnd stage renal diseaseDiseaseEndocrinologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young adult onset type 2 diabetes (YT2DM) is an aggressive disease. Cross-sectional studies have shown a higher prevalence of albuminuria in YT2DM compared to age-matched young adults with T1DM (YT1DM). Whether this translates to poorer long-term renal outcomes has not been widely studied. We aimed (i) to examine progression to renal replacement therapy (RRT) and renal-related death (RRD) in our young adult population, and (ii) to examine survival on RRT for those individuals who reached end stage renal disease. We performed probabilistic linkage of prospectively collected data from the RPA Diabetes Centre eMR to the Australian National Death Index and the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry up to 31/12/2015. In our patient cohort diagnosed between the ages of 15 and 35 years, 1,248 had YT1DM and 1,534 had YT2DM. After a median (IQR) observation of 13.6 (6.9-20.7) years, 56 (4.5%) of YT1DM vs. 98 (6.4%) of YT2DM reached the combined renal end-point of RRT/RRD. Analysis of Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated a greater rate of progression of renal disease in YT2DM (Log-rank p=0.003). Cox proportional hazard modelling of RRT/RRD with adjustment for gender, ethnicity and duration of diabetes exposure was undertaken. The HR (95% CI) for an adverse renal outcome in YT2DM relative to YT1DM was 2.0 (1.4-2.9), p<0.001. This HR was attenuated when further adjustments were made for HbA1c, blood pressure, BMI and cholesterol. Similar results were obtained after multiple imputation for missing data. For the 80 young adults who commenced RRT, there were 19 deaths (70%) in the YT1DM subgroup and 26 deaths (49%) in the YT2DM subgroup after a median (IQR) observation time of 4.2 (2.2-9.1) years. KM survival analysis demonstrated equally poor survival in YT1DM and YT2DM. Cox regression with transplant as a time-varying covariate also showed non-significance. These data highlight the more rapidly progressive renal disease seen in YT2DM compared to YT1DM; however, survival on RRT appears to be equally poor for both diabetes types. Disclosure T. Middleton: Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca. S. Chadban: None. L.M. Molyneaux: None. M.I. D'Souza: None. M.I. Constantino: None. D. Yue: None. M. McGill: None. T. Wu: Advisory Panel; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. S.M. Twigg: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. Board Member; Self; AstraZeneca. Research Support; Self; Abbott. Speaker's Bureau; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi-Aventis. J. Wong: Advisory Panel; Self; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Lilly Diabetes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207