MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3026743320 · doi:10.1111/dme.14331

Higher levels of bodily pain in people with long‐term type 1 diabetes: associations with quality of life, depressive symptoms, fatigue and glycaemic control – the Dialong study

2020· article· en· W3026743320 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Karin Molvær, Marjolein M. Iversen, Jannicke Igland, Mark Peyrot, Grethe S. Tell, Kristine Bech Holte, Tore Julsrud Berg

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetic Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHelse Vest
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusQuality of life (healthcare)Depression (economics)Type 2 diabetesPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims To compare reported level of bodily pain, overall and health‐related quality of life (QoL), depression and fatigue in people with long‐term type 1 diabetes vs. a comparison group without diabetes. Further, to examine the associations of total bodily pain with QoL, depression, fatigue and glycaemic control in the diabetes group. Methods Cross‐sectional study of 104 (76% of eligible) people with type 1 diabetes of ≥ 45 years’ duration attending the Norwegian Diabetes Centre and 75 persons without diabetes who completed questionnaires measuring bodily pain (RAND‐36 bodily pain domain), shoulder pain (Shoulder Pain and Disability Index), hand pain (Australian/Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index), overall QoL (World Health Organization Quality of Life – BREF), health‐related QoL (RAND‐36), diabetes‐specific QoL (Audit of Diabetes‐Dependent Quality of Life; only diabetes group), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire) and fatigue (Fatigue questionnaire). For people with type 1 diabetes, possible associations between the bodily pain domain (lower scores indicate higher levels of bodily pain) and other questionnaire scores, were measured with regression coefficients ( B ) per 10‐unit increase in bodily pain score from linear regression. Results The diabetes group reported higher levels of bodily ( P = 0.003), shoulder and hand pain ( P < 0.001) than the comparison group. In the diabetes group, bodily pain was associated with lower overall and diabetes‐specific QoL [ B (95% confidence intervals)]: 0.2 (0.1, 0.2) and 0.2 (0.1, 0.3); higher levels of depression −1.0 (−1.3, −0.7) and total fatigue −1.5 (−1.9, −1.2); and worse glycaemic control HbA 1c (mmol/mol; %) −0.8 (−1.5, −0.1); −0.1 (−0.1, −0.01). Conclusions People with long‐term type 1 diabetes experience a high level of bodily pain compared with a comparison group. Total bodily pain was associated with worse QoL and 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetic MedicineSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207