Age and sex differences in the association between neighborhood socioeconomic environment and incident diabetes: Results from the diabetes location, environmental attributes and disparities (LEAD) network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Worse neighborhood socioeconomic environment (NSEE) may contribute to an increased risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D). We examined whether the relationship between NSEE and T2D differs by sex and age in three study populations. Research design and methods: We conducted a harmonized analysis using data from three independent longitudinal study samples in the US: 1) the Veteran Administration Diabetes Risk (VADR) cohort, 2) the REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort, and 3) a case-control study of Geisinger electronic health records in Pennsylvania. We measured NSEE with a z-score sum of six census tract indicators within strata of community type (higher density urban, lower density urban, suburban/small town, and rural). Community type-stratified models evaluated the likelihood of new diagnoses of T2D in each study sample using restricted cubic splines and quartiles of NSEE. Results: Across study samples, worse NSEE was associated with higher risk of T2D. We observed significant effect modification by sex and age, though evidence of effect modification varied by site and community type. Largely, stronger associations between worse NSEE and diabetes risk were found among women relative to men and among those less than age 45 in the VADR cohort. Similar modification by age group results were observed in the Geisinger sample in small town/suburban communities only and similar modification by sex was observed in REGARDS in lower density urban communities. Conclusions: The impact of NSEE on T2D risk may differ for males and females and by age group within different community types.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".