Recent Trends in Cardiovascular Complications Among Men and Women With and Without Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE -To compare recent trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes among men and women with diabetes with those in the nondiabetic population. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS-We conducted a retrospective cohort study using provincial health claims data to identify adults with (n ϭ 670,602) and without (n ϭ 9,190,721) diabetes living in Ontario, Canada, between 1 April 1992 and 31 March 2000.We compared changes in the annual age-/sex-adjusted rates and numbers of subjects admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and stroke and of deaths from AMI, stroke, and all causes between those with and without diabetes.RESULTS -Over the 8-year period, the rate of patients admitted for AMI and stroke fell to a greater extent in the diabetic than the nondiabetic population (AMI: Ϫ15.1 vs. Ϫ9.1%,P Ͻ 0.0001; stroke: Ϫ24.2 vs. 19.4%,P Ͻ 0.0001).Diabetic patients experienced similar reductions in case-fatality rates related to AMI and stroke than those without diabetes (Ϫ44.1 vs. Ϫ33.2%,P ϭ 0.1; Ϫ17.1 vs. Ϫ16.6%,P ϭ 0.9, respectively).Declines in all-cause mortality were also comparable in the two populations.Over the same period, the number of diabetes cases increased from 405,471 to 670,602.Thus, while CVD rates fell, the number of events occurring in this population rose substantially (AMI: ϩ44.6%, stroke: ϩ26.1%,AMI deaths: ϩ17.2%, and stroke deaths: ϩ13.2%).CONCLUSIONS -Our findings demonstrate a significant reduction in the rate of people affected by CVD within the diabetic population.However, as the number of people with diabetes rises, so may the absolute burden of CVD in our society.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".