MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2998715318 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v10n3p98

Estimating risk and cost: An analysis of patients with risk factors for Type 2 Diabetes in rural Jalisco, Mexico

2019· article· en· W2998715318 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katie Morales, Emily M. Hall, Ella Harris, Alden Blair, Sharon Rose, Sergio Bautista‐Arredondo, Nicole Santos, M.R González Sandoval, Alberto Tovar, Kimberly Baltzell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEnvironmental healthObesityPopulationDemographyRisk factorHealth careGerontologyInternal medicineEconomic growthEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global age standardized prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2DM) has doubled (4.7% to 8.5%) over the last three decades and is increasing more rapidly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The global economic burden of diabetes affects individuals and health care systems and is estimated to cost $825 billion USD a year. Within Mexico, T2DM is the second leading cause of mortality and the leading cause of morbidity using disability associated life years (DALYs). A retrospective chart review and cost analysis, analyzing those at risk of diabetes, was conducted at a rural community health clinic in Jalisco, Mexico. The goal was to project the cost of providing an appropriate scope of care and plan prevention-based population health programs. The results demonstrated that out of 264 charts reviewed, 218 (83%) had one or more diabetic risk factor. The estimated per patient per visit cost is $127.22 MP (Mexican Peso, 2018) and as the number of diabetes risk factors increases for an individual patient, the mean cost of their care to the system increases (p < .001). Those with at least one risk factor comprise the majority in both males and females with a median age of 36 and median BMI of 28, and this group also has the highest percentage of borderline hypertension (46%). This data demonstrates an opportunity to intervene in a group of young adults (ages 27-46) with a cluster of high-risk borderline risk factors and preventing them from developing obesity, hypertension and diabetes later in life.

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)0.004
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→