Judging the possibility of the onset of diabetes mellitus type 2 from reported behavioral changes and from family history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed type 2 diabetes is common and can lead to unrecognized health complications. Given that earlier detection can reduce the damage to vital organs, it is important for all persons to be able to make the connection between certain new manifestations in their bodies and the possibility of diabetes. This study examined the extent to which people use the behavioral changes they observe in others (or in themselves), as well as relevant family history, to judge the possibility of the onset of diabetes. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-six adults living in France examined a set of realistic vignettes describing a person with (or without) signs suggestive of diabetes (e.g., increased thirst, family antecedents) and judged the possibility of the disease in each case. RESULTS: Overall, 36% of participants focused on reported symptoms when judging the possibility of diabetes, 37% focused on family history, and 29% were not able to use the information or tended systematically to minimize the possibility of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: People in France and probably around the world need a greater awareness not only of the factors putting them at risk of diabetes, but also of the specific signs and symptoms suggesting that they might be developing it.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".