MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391756770 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2023-0476

Association between macro- and microvascular damage and sarcopenia index in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus

2024· article· en· W4391756770 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hui Xu, Qunyan Xiang, Junkun Zhan, Yanjiao Wang, Shuang Li, You‐Shuo Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutrition and Health in Aging
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
FundersFundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of the Central South UniversityNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Hunan ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSarcopeniaMedicineType 2 Diabetes MellitusDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineBody mass indexType 2 diabetesGerontologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sarcopenia was recently reported to be relevant to an increased macro-and microvascular disease risk. Sarcopenia index (SI) has been identified as a surrogate marker for sarcopenia. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between macro- and microvascular disease and SI in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). A total of 783 patients with T2DM were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. The SI was calculated by (serum creatinine [mg/dL]/cystatin C [mg/L]) × 100. The subjects were divided into three groups according to SI tertiles: T1 (41.27–81.37), T2 (81.38– 99.55), and T3 (99.56–192.31). Parameters of macro- and microvascular complications, including diabetic retinopathy (DR), micro- and macroalbuminuria (MAU), diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), and lower extremity peripheral artery disease (LEAD) were evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that when taking the top tertile of SI as a reference, an increasing trend of the prevalence of DR, MAU, DPN, and LEAD were presented (all P for trend < 0.05), where the OR (95% CI) for DR prevalence was 1.967 (1.252–3.090) in T2, 2.195 (1.278–3.769) in T1, for MAU was 1.805 (1.149–2.837) in T2, 2.537 (1.490–4.320) in T1, for DPN was 2.244 (1.485–3.391) in T2, 3.172 (1.884–5.341) in T1, and for LEAD was 2.017 (1.002–4.057) in T2, 2.405 (1.107–5.225) in T1 (all P < 0.05). Patients with lower SI were more inclined to have an increased risk of macro- and microvascular damage in T2DM population, which may be related to sarcopenia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicNutrition and Health in Aging→French-language works237,207→