RELATIVE RISK OF DIABETES MELLITUS AMONG OBESE POPULATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Diabetes is more prevalent mainly in Asian population, but the incidence proportion and likelihood are still unknown due to lack of evidence and proper research, therefore in this research paper the main aim is to assess the relative risk of diabetes mellitus in obese people in Pakistan. Methodology: A case control study was conducted on 233 participants including diabetic and non-diabetic. The participants were approached from different clinics and hospitals from Nov 2021 to April 2022 using convenient sampling technique. Participants’ age, body mass index and weight category were measured. The odds and relative risk ratio were calculated for diabetic patients in obese people. Results: It was found that among the obese population, the odds of having diabetes were 3.85 times greater than that of non-obese adults whereas relative risk was also found to 2.17 times higher than that of non-obese population with the p-value <0.05. Conclusions: The prevalence of obesity is higher in diabetic population as compared to non-diabetic individuals. This increases the chances of developing diabetes in obese population as compared to the individuals with normal weight.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".