Association of C-reactive protein with future development of diabetes: a population-based 7-year cohort study among Norwegian adults aged 30 and older in the Tromsø Study 2007–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The extent to which observed associations between high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and incident diabetes are explained by obesity and hypertension remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the association of hs-CRP with developing diabetes in a Norwegian general population sample. DESIGN: A cohort study using two population-based surveys of the Tromsø Study: the sixth survey Tromsø6 (2007-2008) as baseline and the seventh survey Tromsø7 (2015-2016) at follow-up. SETTING: Tromsø municipality of Norway, a country with increasing proportion of older adults and a high prevalence of overweight, obesity and hypertension. PARTICIPANTS: 8067 women and men without diabetes, aged 30-87 years, at baseline Tromsø6 who subsequently also participated in Tromsø7. OUTCOME MEASURES: Diabetes defined by self-reported diabetes, diabetes medication use and/or HbA1c≥6.5% (≥48 mmol/mol) was modelled by logistic regression for the association with baseline hs-CRP, either stratified into three quantiles or as continuous variable, adjusted for demographic factors, behavioural and cardiovascular risk factors, lipid-lowering medication use, and hypertension. Interactions by sex, body mass index (BMI), hypertension or abdominal obesity were assessed by adding interaction terms in the fully adjusted model. RESULTS: There were 320 (4.0%) diabetes cases after 7 years. After multivariable adjustment including obesity and hypertension, individuals in the highest hs-CRP tertile 3 had 73% higher odds of developing diabetes (OR 1.73; p=0.004; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.49) when compared with the lowest tertile or 28% higher odds of incidence per one-log of hs-CRP increment (OR 1.28; p=0.003; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.50). There was no evidence for interaction between hs-CRP and sex, hypertension, BMI or abdominal obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Raised hs-CRP was associated with future diabetes development in a Norwegian adult population sample. The CRP-diabetes association could not be fully explained by obesity or hypertension.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".