MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3044103426 · doi:10.1101/2020.07.21.20158733

Incident psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact in individuals with newly developed type 2 diabetes

2020· preprint· en· W3044103426 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher Rohde, Norbert Schmitz, Reimar W. Thomsen, Søren Dinesen Østergaard

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityDouglas College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychiatryType 2 diabetesComorbidityPsychiatric hospitalIncidence (geometry)Propensity score matchingCohortDiabetes mellitusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To investigate the association between newly developed type 2 diabetes (T2D) and incident psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact. Methods We identified all individuals from the Central- and Northern Denmark Regions with newly developed T2D (defined by the first HbA 1c measurement >6.5%) from 2000-2016 and up to five age and sex matched individuals without T2D (controls). Those having received psychopharmacological treatment or having had a psychiatric hospital contact in the five years prior to the onset of T2D were excluded. For this cohort, we first assessed the incidence of psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact among individuals with T2D and controls, respectively. Secondly, we compared the incidence of psychopharmacological/psychiatric hospital contact among individuals with T2D to propensity score matched controls. Finally, we assessed which baseline (T2D onset) characteristics that were associated with subsequent psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact. Results We identified 56,640 individuals with newly developed T2D and 315,694 controls. A total of 8.3% of the individuals with T2D initiated psychopharmacological treatment within the 2 years following onset compared to 4.6% among the age and sex matched controls. Individuals with T2D were at increased risk of initiating psychopharmacological treatment compared to the propensity score matched controls (HR=1.51, 95% CI=1.43-1.59), whereas their risk of psychiatric hospital contact was not increased to the same extent (HR=1.14, 95% CI=0.98-1.32). Older age, somatic comorbidity, and being divorced/widowed was associated with both psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact following T2D. Conclusion Individuals with T2D are at elevated risk of requiring psychopharmacological treatment. Significant outcomes 8.3% of the individuals with T2D initiated psychopharmacological treatment within the 2 years following onset compared to 4.6% among the age and sex matched controls Individuals with newly developed T2D were at increased risk of initiating psychopharmacological treatment and of having psychiatric hospital contact compared to propensity score matched controls. Risk factors for psychopharmacological treatment/psychiatric hospital contact following development of T2D include older age, somatic comorbidity and being divorced or widowed. Limitations Identification of T2D (a HbA1c level >6.5%) itself might lead to the identification of mental illness and thereby psychopharmacological treatment initiation/psychiatric hospital contact. A proportion of the individuals with T2D will likely have initiated treatment with an antidepressant due to neuropathic pain developed as a complication to T2D

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicDiabetes Management and Education→French-language works237,207→