Trends in glucose testing among individuals without diabetes in Ontario between 2010 and 2017: a population-based cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Early identification of people with diabetes or prediabetes enables greater opportunities for glycemic control and management strategies to prevent related complications. To identify gaps in screening for these conditions, we examined population trends in receipt of timely glucose testing overall and in specific clinical subgroups. Methods: Using linked administrative databases, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of people aged 40 years and older without diabetes at baseline. Our primary outcome was up-to-date glucose testing, defined as having received testing at least once in the 3 years before each index year from 2010 to 2017, using linked administrative databases of people residing in Ontario, Canada. We calculated rates of up-to-date testing by age group, sex, ethnicity (South Asian, Chinese, general population) and comorbidities (hypertension, hyperlipidemia, cardiovascular disease). Results: Over the 8-year study period, up-to-date glucose testing rates were stable at 67% for men and 77% for women (both relative risk 1.00 per year; 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.00). Testing rates were significantly lower in men than in women (all age groups p < 0.001) and lower in younger than older age groups (except those aged ≥ 80 yr). South Asian people had the highest testing rates, although among people aged 70 years or older, testing was highest in the general population (p < 0.001). Among people with hypertension, hyperlipidemia and cardiovascular disease, annual testing rates were also stable, but only 58% overall among people with hypertension. Interpretation: We found lower glucose testing rates in younger men and people with hypertension. Our findings reinforce the need for initiatives to increase awareness of glycemic testing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".