Incident psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact in individuals with newly developed type 2 diabetes – a register-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the association between newly developed type 2 diabetes (T2D) and incident psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact. Via Danish registers, we identified all 56 640 individuals from the Central and Northern Denmark Regions with newly developed T2D (defined by the first HbA1c measurement ≥6.5%) in 2000-2016 as well as 315 694 age- and sex-matched controls (without T2D). Those having received psychopharmacological treatment or having had a psychiatric hospital contact in the 5 years prior to the onset of T2D were not included. For this cohort, we first assessed the 2-year incidence of psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact. Secondly, via Cox regression, we compared the incidence of psychopharmacological treatment/psychiatric hospital contact among individuals with T2D to propensity score-matched controls - taking a wide range of potential confounders into account. Finally, via Cox proportional hazards regression, we assessed which baseline (T2D onset) characteristics were associated with subsequent psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact. A total of 8.3% of the individuals with T2D initiated psychopharmacological treatment compared to 4.6% of 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 were associated with both psychopharmacological treatment and psychiatric hospital contact following T2D. Individuals with T2D are at elevated risk of requiring psychopharmacological treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".