Cardiovascular risk factor control in British adults with diabetes mellitus: Retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using primary care electronic medical records (the United Kingdom Health Improvement Network Database 2003-2015), we examined the control of cardiovascular risk factors in the first year after diagnosis in British adults with diabetes mellitus. Among 292 170 individuals with diabetes receiving frequent outpatient management (median of 16 primary care visits in the prior year), control of cardiovascular risk factors a median of 354 days after diagnosis was suboptimal: 14.7% had HbA1C < 7%, SBP < 140 mm Hg, LDL cholesterol ≤1.8 mmol/L or taking a statin, and were nonsmokers (the proportion dropped to 7.5% if the SBP target was defined as <130 mm Hg). While 90.4% had an LDL cholesterol ≤1.8 mmol/L or were taking a statin, and 86.0% were nonsmokers, only 52.0% had HbA1C < 7% and 53.1% had SBP < 140 mm Hg (29.8% had SBP < 130 mm Hg) despite 71.4% taking antihypertensive agents. Thus, there is still a need for quality improvement strategies that target all atherosclerotic risk factors in individuals with diabetes and not just glycaemic control.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".