Comparison of quality of life and functionality in type 2 diabetics with and without insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Type 2 diabetes mellitus compromises physical, psychological, economic, and social life. OBJECTIVES: To identify and compare the quality of life, depression, functional performance, and physical activity in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who use insulin or not. METHODS: A observational, descriptive, cross-sectional, comparative study involving 100 patients (50 use insulin and 50 do not) from a Teaching Hospital. Questionnaires used: Identification and Socioeconomic Profile; SF-36; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Visual Analogue Scale for Pain; Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, and International Physical Activity Questionnaire. RESULTS: Sample composed predominantly by middle-aged, female, married, retired, and with incomplete elementary school individuals. There is impairment in all domains of quality of life, being more intense in functional capacity, physical limitations, pain, social aspects, limitation by emotional aspects, and mental health (P<0.05). There is a significant prevalence of anxiety or depressive symptoms in the groups, especially in those using insulin. However, the occurrence of the corresponding psychiatric disorders is unlikely (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in neuropathic pain between the groups (P=0.2296). Functional impairment is similar in both groups regarding self-care activities (P=0.4494) and productivity (P=0.5759), with a greater deterioration of leisure time in patients on insulin (P=0.0091). Most of them practice physical activity, predominantly walking, with no significant difference when comparing the groups (P>0.05), as well as in the other modalities. CONCLUSION: Insulinized patients present greater impairment of functional capacity and socialization, as well as greater neuropathic pain, anxiety, and depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".