1349-P: Incidence of Diabetes in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus Diagnosed by the IADPSG vs. Two-Step Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In Canada, the 2-step approach for the diagnosis of gestational diabetes (GDM) continues to be used, due to uncertain treatment benefit at the lower diagnostic thresholds recommended by the International Association of Diabetes and Pregnancy Study Groups (IADPSG). GDM diagnosed by 2 step criteria is associated with an elevated risk of subsequent diabetes; however, the impact of GDM based on IADPSG criteria on future diabetes risk is unknown. Aim: To evaluate the risk of future diabetes associated with a GDM diagnosis using the 2 step and IADPSG criteria. Methods: Using Ontario population-based databases, we evaluated the incidence of diabetes in women with a live birth recorded between April 2011 and March 2014 and available prenatal glucose tolerance test records. Women were categorized according to their prenatal glucose tolerance results as no GDM, GDM based on 2-step criteria, and GDM based on IADPSG criteria (positive by IADPSG, negative by 2 step criteria). They were followed until April 2018 for a diagnosis of diabetes. Risk of diabetes associated with GDM based on each definition was compared to no GDM using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Of the 104,942 women included in the study, 5,371 (5.1%) had GDM by 2 step criteria and 2,436 (2.3%) had GDM based on IADPSG criteria. There were 821 (0.78%) diabetes cases over 329 771 person-years of follow-up. After adjusting for age, body-mass index, history of GDM, gestational weight gain, birth weight, income, and ethnicity, diabetes risk was significantly higher for both GDM women by 2 step criteria (HR 14.1; 95% CI 11.7-16.9) and for GDM based on IADPSG criteria alone (HR 3.1; 95% CI:2.0-4.7) compared to no GDM. Conclusion: While the relative risk of diabetes compared to normal glucose tolerance is higher for women diagnosed with GDM using the conventional 2 step criteria, GDM based on IADPSG criteria also confers a significant 3-fold increase in diabetes risk. Disclosure B. Balaji: None. S. Read: None. H. Berger: None. D. Feig: Advisory Panel; Self; Novo Nordisk A/S. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Medtronic. B.R. Shah: None. L. Lipscombe: None.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".