Blood pressure in adolescents and young adults with type 1 diabetes: data from the Australasian Diabetes Data Network registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Hypertension increases complication risk in type 1 diabetes (T1D). We examined blood pressure (BP) in adolescents and young adults with T1D from the Australasian Diabetes Data Network, a prospective clinical diabetes registry in Australia and New Zealand. METHODS: This was a longitudinal study of prospectively collected registry data. INCLUSION CRITERIA: percentile for age < 18 years, and systolic BP > 130 and/or diastolic BP > 80 mmHg for age ≥ 18 years. Multivariable Generalised Estimating Equations were used to examine demographic and clinical factors associated with BP in the hypertensive range across all visits. RESULTS: Data from 6338 young people (male 52.6%) attending 24 participating centres across 36,655 T1D healthcare visits were included; 2812 (44.4%) had BP recorded at last visit. Across all visits, 19.4% of youth aged < 18 years and 21.7% of those aged ≥ 18 years met criteria for hypertension. In both age groups, BP in the hypertensive range was associated with male sex, injection (vs. pump) therapy, higher HbA1c, and higher body mass index. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high proportion of adolescents and young adults reported with BP persistently in hypertensive ranges. Findings flag the additive contribution of hypertension to the well-established body of evidence indicating a need to review healthcare models for adolescents and young adults with T1D.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".