MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402048118 · doi:10.2196/54429

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Chronic Kidney Disease in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes in China: Cross-Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4402048118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaoming Xue, Xuefeng Yu, Yangang Wang, Tianpei Hong, Jianhua Ma, Dalong Zhu, Yiming Mu

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyMedicineKidney diseaseEnvironmental healthType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusDiseaseInternal medicineEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a significant long-term complication of diabetes and is a primary contributor to end-stage kidney disease. Objective This study aimed to report comprehensive nationwide data on the prevalence, screening, and awareness rates of CKD in Chinese patients with type 2 diabetes, along with associated risk factors. Methods Baseline data analysis of the ongoing prospective, observational IMPROVE study was conducted. The study cohort comprised patients who had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes more than 12 months prior, received at least 1 hypoglycemic medication, and were aged ≥18 years. The participants completed questionnaires and underwent laboratory assessments, including blood and urine samples. The data encompassed patient demographics, medical history, concurrent medications, and comorbidities. Comprehensive evaluations involved physical examinations, urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting blood glucose, 2-hour postprandial blood glucose, fasting blood lipid profile, and urinalysis. Descriptive statistics were applied for data interpretation, and logistic regression analyses were used to identify the CKD-associated risk factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Results A national study from December 2021 to September 2022 enlisted 9672 participants with type 2 diabetes from 45 hospitals that had endocrinology departments. The enrollees were from diverse regions in China, as follows: central (n=1221), east (n=3269), south (n=1474), north (n=2219), and west (n=1489). The prevalence, screening, and awareness rates of CKD among patients with type 2 diabetes were 31% (2997/9672), 27% (810/2997), and 54.8% (5295/9672), respectively. Multivariate binary regression analysis revealed that the CKD risk factors were screening, awareness, smoking, age, diabetes duration, concurrent antihypertensive and microcirculation medications, diabetic complications (foot, retinopathy, and neuropathy), hypertension, elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and suboptimal glycemic control. Subgroup analysis highlighted an increased CKD prevalence among older individuals, those with prolonged diabetes durations, and residents of fourth-tier cities. Residents of urban areas that had robust educational and economic development exhibited relatively high awareness and screening rates. Notably, 24.2% (1717/7107) of patients with an eGFR ≥90 mL/min/1.73 m2 had proteinuria, whereas 3.4% (234/6909) who had a UACR <30 mg/g presented with an eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Compared with patients who were cognizant of CKD, those who were unaware of CKD had increased rates of HbA1c ≥7%, total cholesterol >5.18 μmol/L, LDL cholesterol >3.37 μmol/L, BMI ≥30 kg/m2, and hypertension. Conclusions In a Chinese population of adults with type 2 diabetes, the CKD prevalence was notable, at 31%, coupled with low screening and awareness rates. Multiple risk factors for CKD have been identified. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05047471; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05047471

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations19
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicChronic Kidney Disease and DiabetesFrench-language works237,207