Association Between Age at Diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes and Hospitalization for Heart Failure: A Population‐Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The relation between age at diagnosis of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) is unclear. We assessed the association between age at diagnosis of T2D and HHF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using administrative health databases from the Canadian province of Ontario, including participants without prior heart failure. We identified people with new-onset T2D between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2015, and matched each person with 3 diabetes-free adults, according to birth year and sex. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and rate ratios (RRs) for the association between age at T2D diagnosis and incident HHF, which was assessed until March 31, 2020. Among 743 053 individuals with T2D and 2 199 539 matched individuals without T2D, 126 241 incident HHF events occurred over 8.9 years. T2D was associated with a greater adjusted hazard of HHF at younger ages (eg, HR at age 30 years: 6.94 [95% CI, 6.54-7.36]) than at older ages (eg, HR at age 60 years: 2.50 [95% CI, 2.45-2.56]) relative to matched individuals. Additional adjustment for mediators (hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic kidney disease) marginally attenuated this relationship. Age at T2D diagnosis was associated with a greater number of HHF events relative to matched individuals at younger ages (eg, RR at age 30 years: 6.39 [95% CI, 5.76-7.08]) than at older ages (eg, RR at age 60 years: 2.65 [95% CI, 2.54-2.76]). CONCLUSIONS: Younger age at T2D diagnosis is associated with a disproportionately elevated HHF risk relative to age-matched individuals without T2D.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".