Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Results in Pregnancy Can Be Used to Individualize the Risk of Future Maternal Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Women With Gestational Diabetes Mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify the risk of future maternal T2DM in women with GDM based on the type and number of abnormal 75g-OGTT values and the diagnostic criteria used for the diagnosis of GDM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of all nulliparous women with a live singleton birth who underwent testing for GDM using a 75g-OGTT in Ontario, Canada (2007-2017). We estimated the incidence rates (per 1000 person years), overall risk (expressed as adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]), and risk at 5-year post the index pregnancy of future maternal T2DM. Estimates were stratified by the type and number of abnormal OGTT values, as well as by the diagnostic criteria for GDM (Diabetes Canada vs. IADPSG criteria). RESULTS: A total of 55,361 women met the study criteria. The median duration of follow-up was 4.4 (IQR 2.8-6.3, maximum 10.3) years. Using women without GDM as reference (incidence rate 2.18 per 1000py), women with GDM were at an increased risk of future T2DM, with the risk being higher for the Diabetes Canada compared with the IADPSG criteria (incidence rate 18.74 [95%-CI 17.58-19.90] vs. 14.07 [95%-CI 13.24-14.91] per 1000py, respectively). The risk of future maternal T2DM increased with the number of abnormal OGTT values, and was highest for women with 3 abnormal values (incidence rate 49.93 per 1000py; aHR 24.57 [95%-CI 21.26-28.39]). The risk of future T2DM was also affected by the type of OGTT abnormality: women with an abnormal fasting value had the greatest risk while women with an abnormal 2-hour value had the lowest risk for future T2DM (aHR 14.09 [95%-CI 12.46-15.93) vs. 9.22 [95%-CI 8.19-10.37]), respectively). Similar findings to those described above were observed when the risk of T2DM at a fixed time point of 5-years post the index pregnancy was considered as the outcome of interest. CONCLUSION: In women with GDM, individualized information regarding the future risk of T2DM can be provided based on the type and number of abnormal OGTT values, as well as the diagnostic criteria used for the diagnosis of GDM.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".