Evaluation of predominant risk factors for type 2 diabetes mellitus among out-patients in two Nigerian secondary health facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevention of type 2 diabetes is enabled by identification and effective management of risk factors. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the predominant risks for type 2 diabetes and identify persons at highest risk in a population; to facilitate the understanding of implications for practice. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey using Canadian diabetes risk assessment questionnaire was conducted among non-diabetic persons who visited two secondary hospitals. SPSS version 18 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 300 respondents participated in the study, with 25.7% having family history of type 2 diabetes, while 160 (53.3%) were at high risk of developing the disease. Males (62.5%), overweight (65.1%) and obese (82.6%) participants, were at higher risk. Others found to be at high risk were respondents with high waist circumference (55.6%), respondents who did not exercise (77.0%), those who did not eat fruits/vegetable daily (54.4%), those with high blood pressure (67.5%) and those who have had raised blood sugar in the past (71.0%). CONCLUSION: Majority of the study participants was at high risk for type 2 diabetes, male participants had higher risks and lifestyles/habits were the major risks for developing the disease..
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".