MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2993834266

Diabetes in south Asians: etiology and the complexities of care

2010· article· en· W2993834266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anish R. Mitra, Irvin Janjua

Bibliographic record

VenueUBC Faculty of Medicine medical journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSouth asiaDiabetes mellitusEtiologyDiseaseBody mass indexCulturally sensitiveType 2 diabetesType 2 Diabetes MellitusHealth careGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fifteen to twenty percent of south Asians will develop type 2 diabetes mellitus. This extremely high prevalence of diabetes is seen in both south Asians living in developed countries and in south Asians who are living in either urban or rural south Asia. South Asians have specific diabetic risk factors resulting from a tendency to develop metabolically active abdominal fat, resulting in a poor lipid profile even at a low body mass index. They are also particularly vulnerable to microvascular and macrovascular diabetic complications including renal and cardiac disease. The increased prevalence of diabetes in south Asians is likely due to a combination of biological and cultural factors. Targeting these factors is the only way to provide effective education, prevention, screening, and treatment to south Asians. Culturally focused community programs and interprofessional care teams are two health care paradigms that have been successful in helping them manage this chronic illness. Continuing culturally targeted care and education programs is necessary to reduce the prevalence and complications of diabetes in south Asian communities.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUBC Faculty of Medicine medical journalSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207