Myopia and Early-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: A Nationwide Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: A correlation between myopia and insulin resistance has been suggested. OBJECTIVE: We investigated the association between myopia in adolescence and type 2 diabetes (T2D) incidence in young adulthood. METHODS: This population-based, retrospective, cohort study comprised 1 329 705 adolescents (579 543 women, 43.6%) aged 16 to 19 years, who were medically examined before mandatory military service during 1993 to 2012, and whose data were linked to the Israel National Diabetes Registry. Myopia was defined based on right-eye refractive data. Cox proportional models were applied, separately for women and men, to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for T2D incidence per person-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was an interaction between myopia and sex with T2D (P < .001). For women, T2D incidence rates (per 100 000 person-years) were 16.6, 19.2, and 25.1 for those without myopia, and with mild-to-moderate and high myopia, respectively. These corresponded to HRs of 1.29 (95% CI, 1.14-1.45) and 1.63 (1.21-2.18) for women with mild-to-moderate and high myopia, respectively, compared to those without myopia, after adjustment for age at study entry, birth year, adolescent body mass index, cognitive performance, socioeconomic status, and immigration status. Results persisted in extensive sensitivity and subgroup analyses. When managed as a continuous variable, every 1-diopter lower spherical equivalent yielded a 6.5% higher adjusted HR for T2D incidence (P = .003). There was no significant association among men. CONCLUSION: For women, myopia in adolescence was associated with a significantly increased risk for incident T2D in young adulthood, in a severity-dependent manner. This finding may support the role of insulin resistance in myopia pathogenesis.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".