Progression to type 2 diabetes mellitus and associated risk factors after hyperglycemia first detected in pregnancy: A cross-sectional study in Cape Town, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global data indicate that women with a history of hyperglycemia first detected in pregnancy (HFDP) are at up to 7 times risk of progressing to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) compared with their counterparts who have pregnancies that are not complicated by hyperglycemia. However, there are no data from the sub-Saharan African region, which has the highest projected rise in diabetes prevalence globally. The aim of this study was to determine the proportion of women who progress to T2DM and associated risk factors 5 to 6 years after HFDP in Cape Town, South Africa. METHODS AND FINDINGS: All women with HFDP, at a major referral hospital in Cape Town, were followed up 5 to 6 years later using a cross-sectional study. Each participant had a 75 g oral glucose tolerance test; anthropometric measurements and a survey were administered. A total of 220 participants were followed up. At this time, their mean age was 37.2 years (SD 6.0). Forty-eight percent (95% CI 41.2-54.4) progressed to T2DM, 5.5% (95% CI 3.1-9.4) had impaired fasting glucose, and 10.5% (95% CI 7.0-15.3) had impaired glucose tolerance. Of the participants who progressed to T2DM, 47% were unaware of their diabetes status. When HFDP was categorized post hoc according to WHO 2013 guidelines, progression in the diabetes in pregnancy (DIP) group was 81% (95% CI 70.2-89.0) and 31.3% (95% CI 24.4-39.3) in the gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) category. Factors associated with risk of progression to T2DM were; at follow-up: waist circumference (odds ratios [OR] 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.1, p = 0.007), hip circumference (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.8-1.0, p = 0.001), and BMI (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.3, p = 0.001), and at baseline: insulin (OR 25.8, 95% CI 3.9-171.4, p = 0.001) and oral hypoglycaemic treatment during HFDP (OR 4.1, 95% CI 1.3-12.9, p = 0.018), fasting (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.5-4.8, p = 0.001), and oral glucose tolerance test 2-hour glucose concentration at HFDP diagnosis (OR 4.3, 95% CI 2.4-7.7, p < 0.001). Our findings have limitations in that we did not include a control group of women without a history of HFDP. CONCLUSIONS: The progression to T2DM in women with previous HFDP found in this study highlights the need for interventions to delay or prevent progression to T2DM after HFDP. In addition, interventions to prevent HFDP may also contribute to reducing the risk of 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".