Abstract P305: Room for Improved Secondary Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events Among the Population With New Onset Diabetes: A Longitudinal Latent Class Trajectory Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: After a diagnosis of diabetes, specialist physicians may play a key role in the secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE). Yet, trajectories of visits to specialists are heterogenous and their efficacy in the prevention of MACE remains unexplored. Goal: To assess whether trajectories of visits to specialists are associated with MACE among new cases of diabetes. Methods: Using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System, we identified new cases of diabetes ≥20 years old during fiscal year 2013, who had no prior history of MACE (ischemic cardiopathy, stroke, myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death). Firstly, individual trajectories according to the presence/absence of ≥1 ambulatory visit to a specialist (cardiologist, internist, endocrinologist) were compiled over consecutive 3-month periods up to 2 years following diagnosis. Patients with no visit were compiled in a “primary care only” group, while others were classified in groups using latent class growth analysis. Patients who had a MACE during this period were excluded. Secondly, the risk of MACE occuring after the 2 years following diagnosis up to December 31 st 2019 was compared between groups using a marginal Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusted with inverse probability weighting and providing adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Among the 24,782 patients included, 5 groups were identified ( Figure 1 ). A total of 2,837 MACE occurred. Compared with the “primary care only group”, those who consulted a specialist were at higher risk of MACE (Regular/frequent visits: aHR: 1.50 [95% CI: 1.26 to 1.66]; Late visits: aHR: 1.41 [1.13 to 1.73]; Regular/sparce visits: 1.38 [1.27 to 1.51]; Early visits: 1.36 [1.19 to 1.54]), while no difference was observed between these groups. Conclusions: Although confounding by indication cannot be totally ruled out, these results may suggest room for improvement in the secondary prevention of MACE after a diabetes diagnosis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".