MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W423455185 · doi:10.31436/imjm.v13i2.482

Update on the Management of Diabetes during Ramadan Fast for Healthcare Practitioners

2014· article· en· W423455185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rathor MY, Mohammad Ar, Ahmad Marzuki Omar

Bibliographic record

VenueIIUM Medical Journal Malaysia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDietary Effects on Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIslamDutyQuarter (Canadian coin)Health careGlobeType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusAlternative medicinePopulationFamily medicineTraditional medicineEnvironmental healthLawEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fasting during the month of Ramadan is one of the five pillars of Islam, a recurring annual ritual, which is passionately practiced by most Muslims across the world. It is obligatory on every healthy Muslim; however, the Qur’an and Islamic teachings specifically exempt people with acute or chronic illnesses from this duty, especially if it might have harmful consequences. Muslims with diabetes are exempted from fasting, but many of them still fast during Ramadan, for their personal convictions as revealed by EPIDIAR study which showed that 43% of patients with type 1 diabetes and 79% with type 2 diabetes fasted during Ramadan. Muslims constitute about a quarter of the world’s population who are spread all over the globe. It is inevitable that health care issues peculiar to them will be encountered worldwide and health care providers will have to counsel them regarding medications and whether it is safe to undertake the fast. This paper is an update on the management of Ramadan fasting based on current evidence from published literature and expert opinions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIIUM Medical Journal MalaysiaSame topicDietary Effects on HealthFrench-language works237,207