Constructing an Adapted Cascade of Diabetes Care Using Inpatient Admissions Data: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The diabetes mellitus cascade of care has been constructed to evaluate diabetes care at a population level by determining the percentage of individuals diagnosed and linked to care as well as their reported glycemic control. Objective We sought to adapt the cascade of care to an inpatient-only setting using the electronic health record (EHR) data of 81,633 patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods In this adaptation, linkage to care was defined as prescription of diabetes medications within 3 months of discharge, and control was defined as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) below individual target levels, as these are the most reliably captured items in the inpatient setting. We applied the cascade model to assess differences in demographics and percent loss at each stage of the cascade; we then conducted two-sample chi-square equality of proportions tests for each demographic. Based on findings in the previous literature, we hypothesized that women, Black patients, younger patients (<45 years old), uninsured patients, and patients living in an economically deprived area called the Promise Zone would be disproportionately unlinked and uncontrolled. We also predicted that patients who received inpatient glycemic care would be more likely to reach glycemic control. Results We found that out of 81,633 patients, 28,716 (35.2%) were linked to care via medication prescription. Women and younger patients were slightly less likely to be linked to care than their male and older counterparts, while Black patients (n=19,141, 23.4% of diagnosed population vs n=6741, 23.5% of the linked population) were as proportionately part of the linked population as White patients (n=58,291, 71.4% of diagnosed population vs n=20,402, 71.0% of the linked population). Those living in underserved communities (ie, the Promise Zone) and uninsured patients were slightly overrepresented (n=6789, 8.3% of diagnosed population vs n=2773, 9.7% of the linked population) in the linked population as compared to patients living in wealthier zip codes and those who were insured. Similar patterns were observed among those more likely to reach glycemic control via HbA1c. However, conclusions are limited by the relatively large amount of missing glycemic data. Conclusions We conclude that inpatient EHR data do not adequately capture the care cascade as defined in the outpatient setting. In particular, missing data in this setting may preclude assessment of glycemic control. Future work should integrate inpatient and outpatient data sources to complete the picture of diabetes care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".