Predictive factors of glycosylated hemoglobin using additive regression model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Diabetes is a chronic disease, non-epidemic disease that costs a lot of money in each year. One of the diagnostic criteria for diabetes is Glycosylated Hemoglobin (HBA1C), which in this study the effective factors on it examined by additive regression model. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 130 patients with diabetes type-2 were selected based on simple random sampling in Ilam city (Iran). Several variables were examined such as gender, age, weight, height, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, hypertension, smoking, family history of diabetes, daily walking for at least 30 minutes, waist and hip circumferences, HbA1c, fasting blood sugar (FBS), RBC mean corpuscular volume (MCV) and BMI. The data were collected based on Canadian diabetes checklist questionnaire. Results: In simple linear regression, waist and hip circumferences and in multiple regression, hip circumference and BMI had a significant effect on HBA1C (P<0.05). Importantly, in simple additive regression waist, hip circumferences and fasting blood Sugar as well as in multiple additive regression waist, hip circumferences, fasting blood sugar and BMI had significant effects on HbA1C (P<0.05). Conclusion: Additive regression model with 0.878 adjusted R-squared and AIC equal to 603.464 was better model for examining the influential factors on HbA1C compared with the multiple regression model with adjusted R-squared and AIC equal to 0.386 and 844.730, respectively. © 2021, Semnan University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".