Estimating life years lost to diabetes: outcomes from analysis of National Diabetes Audit and Office of National Statistics data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With sustained growth of diabetes numbers, sustained patient engagement is essential. Using nationally available data, we have shown that the higher mortality associated with a diagnosis of T1DM/T2DM could produces loss of 6.4 million future life years in the current UK population. In the model, the 'average' person with T1DM (age 42.8 years) has a life expectancy from now of 32.6 years, compared to 40.2 years in the equivalent age non diabetes mellitus population, corresponding to lost life years (LLYs) of 7.6 years/average person. The 'average' person with T2DM (age 65.4 years) has a life expectancy from now of 18.6 years compared to the 20.3 years for the equivalent non diabetes mellitus population, corresponding to LLY of 1.7 years/average person. We estimate that for both T1DM and T2DM, one year with HbA1c >58 mmol/mol loses around 100 life days. Linking glycaemic control to mortality has the potential to focus minds on effective engagement with therapy and lifestyle recommendation adherence.
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 | 0.011 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".