Prevalence of diabetes in people with intellectual disabilities and age‐ and gender‐matched controls: A meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background This meta‐analysis aims to: (i) describe the pooled prevalence of diabetes in people with intellectual disabilities, (ii) investigate the association with demographic, clinical and treatment‐related factors and (iii) compare the prevalence versus age‐ and gender‐matched general population controls. Methods Pubmed, Embase and CINAHL were searched until 01 May 2021. Random effects meta‐analysis and an odds ratio analysis were conducted to compare rates with controls. Results The trim‐ and fill‐adjusted pooled diabetes prevalence amongst 55,548 individuals with intellectual disabilities ( N studies = 33) was 8.5% (95% CI = 7.2%–10.0%). The trim‐ and fill‐adjusted odds for diabetes was 2.46 times higher (95% CI = 1.89–3.21) ( n = 42,684) versus controls ( n = 4,177,550). Older age ( R 2 = .83, p < .001), smoking (R 2 = .30, p = .009) and co‐morbid depression ( R 2 = .18, p = .04), anxiety ( R 2 = .97, p < .001), and hypertension ( R 2 = 0.29, p < .001) were associated with higher diabetes prevalence rates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that people with intellectual disabilities are at an increased risk of diabetes, and therefore routine screening and multidisciplinary management of diabetes is needed.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it