MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977791433 · doi:10.2337/dc19-1062

Plasma Copeptin and Risk of Lower-Extremity Amputation in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes

2019· article· en· W2977791433 on OpenAlexaff
Louis Potier, Ronan Roussel, Michel Marre, Petter Bjornstad, David Z. Cherney, Ray El Boustany, Frédéric Fumeron, Nicolas Venteclef, Jean–François Gautier, Samy Hadjadj, Kamel Mohammedi, Gilberto Velho

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectrolyte and hormonal disorders
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
KeywordsCopeptinMedicineInternal medicineType 2 diabetesHazard ratioCumulative incidenceProportional hazards modelDiabetes mellitusIncidence (geometry)AmputationType 1 diabetesEndocrinologyConfidence intervalSurgeryCohortVasopressin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE Diabetes is the leading cause of nontraumatic lower-extremity amputations (LEAs). Identification of patients with foot ulcers at risk for amputation remains clinically challenging. Plasma copeptin, a surrogate marker of vasopressin, is associated with the risk of cardiovascular and renal complications in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We assessed the association between baseline plasma copeptin and risk of LEA during follow-up in four cohorts of people with type 1 (GENESIS, n = 503, and GENEDIAB, n = 207) or type 2 diabetes (DIABHYCAR, n = 3,101, and SURDIAGENE, n = 1,452) with a median duration of follow-up between 5 and 10 years. Copeptin concentration was measured in baseline plasma samples by an immunoluminometric assay. RESULTS In the pooled cohorts with type 1 diabetes (n = 710), the cumulative incidence of LEA during follow-up by increasing tertiles (tertile 1 [TER1], TER2, and TER3) of baseline plasma copeptin was 3.9% (TER1), 3.3% (TER2), and 10.0% (TER3) (P = 0.002). Cox regression analyses confirmed the association of copeptin with LEA: hazard ratio (HR) for 1 SD increment of log[copeptin] was 1.89 (95% CI 1.28–2.82), P = 0.002. In the pooled cohorts of type 2 diabetes (n = 4,553), the cumulative incidence of LEA was 1.1% (TER1), 2.9% (TER2), and 3.6% (TER3) (P < 0.0001). In Cox regression analyses, baseline plasma copeptin was significantly associated with LEA: HR for 1 SD increment of log[copeptin] was 1.42 (1.15–1.74), P = 0.001. Similar results were observed in the cohort with type 2 diabetes for lower-limb revascularization (HR 1.20 [95% CI 1.03–1.39], P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Baseline plasma copeptin is associated with cumulative incidence of LEA in cohorts of people with both type 1 and type 2 diabetes and may help to identify patients at risk for LEA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicElectrolyte and hormonal disordersFrench-language works237,207