DIABETES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the variations in HbA1con repetition over a span of about two weeks. Period: June 2015 to May 2016. Setting:Department of pathology, Continental Medical College Lahore, attached with Ch. Rehmat AliMemorial Trust Teaching Hospital. Method: A total of 60 newly diagnosed or with no apparentdiabetic complications were included in this study. Venous blood repeated samples wereobtained for evaluation of HbA1c. Results: The result of our study show that in 65% of patientsthe repeated values were lower than the initial values, 25% were higher and 10% were below thediagnostic threshold. So it is indicated that HbA1c values vary over a span of time and repeatedtests values should be considered for borderline patients. Conclusion: It is concluded from thisstudy that values of HbA1c do differ on retest. Therefore, physicians should understand and notbe confused with a little bit variations in values. It is recommended to repeat the test for newlydiagnosed and borderline value patients to reach a final conclusion about diagnosis. It is alsorecommended that a separate study should be conducted to evaluate the cause/mechanismbehind variations in HbA1c over a short period of time in our settings.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.155 | 0.059 |
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".