Duration of Diabetes, Glycemic Control, and Risk of Heart Failure Among Adults With Diabetes: A Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: The influences of diabetes duration and glycemic control and their potential interplays on the risk of heart failure (HF) remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: This work aimed to investigate the association of diabetes duration and glycemic control with the risk of HF. METHODS: A total of 23 754 individuals with diabetes but without HF during the baseline recruitment of UK Biobank were included in this study. Duration of diabetes was self-reported, and the status of glycemic control was reflected by glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels. Their associations with incident HF were assessed using multivariate Cox models adjusting for traditional risk factors. RESULTS: Duration of diabetes and HbA1c levels both were positively associated with the risk of HF. The hazard ratios (HRs) (95% CI) for diabetes durations of 5 to less than 10, 10 to less than 15, and 15 years or more were 1.09 (0.97-1.23), 1.13 (0.97-1.30), and 1.32 (1.15-1.53), respectively (vs < 5 years); and the HRs for HbA1c of 53.0 to less than 58.5 mmol/mol (7.0% to < 7.5%), 58.5 to less than 63.9 mmol/mol (7.5% to < 8.0%), and 63.9 mmol/mol or greater (8.0%) were 1.15 (1.02-1.31), 1.07 (0.91-1.26), and 1.46 (1.30-1.65), respectively (vs < 53.0 mmol/mol [7.0%]). Individuals with the longest disease duration (≥ 15 years) and poorer glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 63.9 mmol/mol [8.0%]) had a particularly higher risk of HF (P for interaction = .026). CONCLUSION: The risk of HF among individuals with diabetes increases with a longer duration of diabetes and increasing HbA1c levels. This finding may contribute to the individualized prevention of HF in patients with diabetes if being considered in clinical practices and policy-making.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".