Relationship Between Diet Quality and Glucose-Lowering Medication Intensity Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: Results From the CARTaGENE Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundIn real-world settings, whether diet and medication are used as complements for glycemic management in type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains unclear. This study assessed the relationship between diet quality and intensity of glucose-lowering medication among adults with T2D.MethodsThis cross-sectional study included 352 adults with T2D from the CARTaGENE Québec population-based cohort. Diet quality was assessed using the Healthful Plant-Based Diet Index (hPDI). Glucose-lowering medication intensity was graded according to self-reported information on the type and number of drugs: no medication; oral monotherapy; oral polytherapy; and insulin with and without oral medication. In the subsample of 239 individuals who reported the medication dosages, intensity was also graded using the Medication Effect Score (MES).ResultsIn multivariable-adjusted models, we found no evidence of a relationship between the hPDI and medication intensity, assessed using the categorical approach (Pbetween-group = 0.25) or the MES (P = 0.43). However, the hPDI was inversely associated with the MES among men < 50 years of age and women < 60 years (β1-point MES = –2.24 [95% confidence interval, –4.46, –0.02] hPDI points), but not among older individuals (β = –0.03 [–1.28, 1.21] hPDI points). Evidence of a nonsignificant inverse relationship between the hPDI and HbA1c was observed (β10-point hPDI = –0.23% [–0.63, 0.17]), whereas a positive and significant association between the MES and hemoglobin (Hb)A1c was found (β1-point MES = 0.30% [0.10, 0.51]).ConclusionsIn this cohort of adults with T2D, there was an overall lack of complementarity between diet quality and intensity of glucose-lowering medication. The issue was particularly important among younger adults for whom diet quality was inversely associated with intensity of medication.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".