MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003900313 · doi:10.1002/edm2.114

Cardiovascular risk factor control in British adults with diabetes mellitus: Retrospective cohort study

2020· article· en· W3003900313 on OpenAlexafffund
Sophie É. Collins, Brendan Cord Lethebe, Tyler Williamson, Finlay A. McAlister

Bibliographic record

VenueEndocrinology Diabetes & Metabolism · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusRetrospective cohort studyRisk factorCohortCohort studyInternal medicineGerontologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndocrinology Diabetes & MetabolismSame topicDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and LipoproteinsFrench-language works237,207