A Unique Multi- and Interdisciplinary Cardiology-Renal-Endocrine Clinic: A Description and Assessment of Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with diabetes and co-existing chronic kidney disease and/or cardiovascular disease have complex medical needs with multiple indications for different guideline-directed medical therapies and require high health care resource utilization. The Cardiac and Renal Endocrine Clinic (C.a.R.E. Clinic) is a multi- and interdisciplinary clinic offering a unique care model to this population to overcome barriers to optimal care. Objective: To describe the patient characteristics and clinical data of consecutive patients seen in the C.a.R.E. Clinic between 2014 and 2020, with a focus on the feasibility, strengths, and challenges of this outpatient care model. Design: Single-center retrospective cohort study. Setting: The C.a.R.E. Clinic is a multi- and interdisciplinary clinic at Toronto General Hospital in Toronto, Canada. Patients: We reviewed the charts of all 118 patients who had been referred to the C.a.R.E. Clinic with type 2 diabetes mellitus, co-existing renal disease, and/or cardiovascular disease. Measurements: Demographic data, medication data, clinic blood pressure measurements, and laboratory data were assessed at the first and last available clinic visit. Methods: Data were extracted via manual chart review of paper and electronic medical records. Results: First and last attended clinic visit data were available for descriptive analysis in 74 patients. There was a significant improvement in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (1.9 mmol/L vs 1.5 mmol/L, P < .01), hemoglobin A1C (7.5% vs 7.1%, P = .02), and the proportion of patients with blood pressure at target (52.7% vs 36.5%, P = .04), but not body mass index (29.7 kg/m² vs 29.6 kg/m², P = .15) between the last and first available clinic visits. There was higher uptake in evidence-based medication use including statins (93.2% vs 81.1%, P = .01), SGLT-2i (35.1% vs 4.1%, P < .01), and GLP-1 receptor agonists (13.5% vs 4.1%, P = .02), while RAAS inhibitor use was already high at baseline (81.8% vs 78.4%, P = .56). There remains a significant opportunity for therapy with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors and glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. Limitations: This is a retrospective chart review lacking a control group, therefore clinical improvements cannot be causally attributed to the clinic alone. New evidence and changes to guideline-recommended therapies also contributed to practice changes during this time period. Conclusions: A multi- and interdisciplinary clinic is a feasible and potentially effective way to improve evidence-based and patient-centered care for patients with diabetes, kidney, and cardiovascular 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".