Prevalence of nephropathy among diabetic patients in North American region: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nephropathy is one of the most common microvascular impediments of diabetes mellitus. In this study, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of nephropathy in diabetic patients across the North American region. METHODS: Eligible studies were screened out from 3 electronic databases, for example, PubMed, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect using specific search keywords based on the eligibility criteria. Extracting the data from the included studies publication bias, quality assessment, outlier investigation, and meta-analysis was done followed by the subgroup analysis. A total of 11 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed with the extracted data. RESULTS: Pooled prevalence of 28.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 19.7-36.7) with a high rate of heterogeneity (I2 = 100%) was identified. The pooled prevalence of nephropathy among diabetic patients in the United States of America, Canada, and Mexico was 24.2% (95% CI: 13.8-34.5), 31.2% (95% CI: 25.8-36.5), and 31.1% (95% CI: 20.8-41.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of nephropathy among diabetic patients was found lower in the United States of America as compared to Canada and Mexico. Besides, the pooled prevalence of the North American region was found to be lower as compared to the African, European, and Asian regions. Minimizing the pathogenic factors, sufficient diagnostic, healthcare facilities, and awareness are recommended to improve the situation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".