Diabetes during pregnancy among Métis people in Alberta: a retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diabetes in pregnancy is an important public health concern for Indigenous populations. We sought to evaluate the prevalence and outcomes of pre-existing and gestational diabetes among Métis pregnancies compared with other pregnancies in Alberta, Canada. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative health data from 2006 to 2016 and the Métis Nation of Alberta Identification Registry to compare the prevalence of pre-existing and gestational diabetes among all singleton Métis births with non-Métis births. We compared 10 maternal and neonatal outcomes using adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in multivariable analyses. RESULTS: The study population included 7902 Métis and 471 886 non-Métis births. The age-standardized prevalence of pre-existing diabetes was 1.7% (95% CI 1.4%-2.1%) for Métis and 1.1% (95% CI 1.1%-1.2%) for non-Métis pregnancies. For gestational diabetes, the age-standardized prevalence was 6.3% (95% CI 5.6%-6.9%) for Métis and 5.4% (95% CI 5.3%-5.4%) for non-Métis pregnancies. After adjusting for parity, maternal weight, age, smoking during pregnancy and material and social deprivation, Métis pregnancies had 1.72 times higher prevalence of preexisting diabetes (adjusted OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.15-2.56) and 1.30 times higher prevalence of gestational diabetes (adjusted OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.08-1.57) than non-Métis pregnancies. Métis pregnancies with pre-existing diabetes had nearly 3 times the odds of developing preeclampsia (adjusted OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.27-6.90), while those with gestational diabetes had 48% higher odds of large-for-gestational-age infants (adjusted OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.00-2.19). INTERPRETATION: Métis pregnancies have an increased prevalence of pre-existing and gestational diabetes than non-Métis pregnancies and an elevated risk of some perinatal outcomes. Interventions to tackle these health inequities should address both physiologic and cultural dimensions of health, informed by Métis perspectives.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".