Sex differences in type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus is increasing in both sexes, but men are usually diagnosed at a younger age and lower body fat mass than women. Worldwide, an estimated 17.7 million more men than women have diabetes mellitus. Women appear to bear a greater risk factor burden at the time of their type 2 diabetes diagnosis, especially obesity. Moreover, psychosocial stress might play a more prominent role in diabetes risk in women. Across their lifespan, women experience greater hormone fluctuations and body changes due to reproductive factors than men. Pregnancies can unmask pre-existing metabolic abnormalities, resulting in the diagnosis of gestational diabetes, which appears to be the most prominent risk factor for progression to type 2 diabetes in women. Additionally, menopause increases women's cardiometabolic risk profile. Due to the progressive rise in obesity, there is a global increase in women with pregestational type 2 diabetes, often with inadequate preconceptual care. There are differences between men and women regarding type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors with respect to comorbidities, the manifestation of complications and the initiation of and adherence to therapy. Women with type 2 diabetes show greater relative risk of CVD and mortality than men. Moreover, young women with type 2 diabetes are currently less likely than men to receive the treatment and CVD risk reduction recommended by guidelines. Current medical recommendations do not provide information on sex-specific or gender-sensitive prevention strategies and management. Thus, more research on sex differences, including the underlying mechanisms, is necessary to increase the evidence in the future. Nonetheless, intensified efforts to screen for glucose metabolism disorders and other cardiovascular risk factors, as well as the early establishment of prophylactic measures and aggressive risk management strategies, are still required for both men and women at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. In this narrative review we aim to summarise sex-specific clinical features and differences between women and men with type 2 diabetes into risk factors, screening, diagnosis, complications and treatment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".