MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403378539 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2024.10.001

Rising Prevalence of Gestational Diabetes Mellitus in Ontario: A Population-based Study

2024· article· en· W4403378539 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Hardil Anup Bhatt, Gillian L. Booth, Ghazal S. Fazli, Calvin Ke, Chris Kenaszchuk, Lorraine L. Lipscombe, Sarah M Mah, Laura C. Rosella, Deva Thiruchelvam, Baiju R. Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Diabetes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreTrillium Health CentreWomen's College HospitalInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkSt. Michael's HospitalPublic Health Ontario
FundersMinistry of Long-Term CareNovo NordiskInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of TorontoInstitut canadien d'information sur la santéMinistry of Health, Ontario
KeywordsMedicineGestational diabetesDiabetes mellitusPopulationObstetricsEnvironmental healthPediatricsPregnancyGestationEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) is a common pregnancy complication. Studies have shown that the prevalence of GDM is rising worldwide. In this study, we aimed to describe the prevalence of GDM in Ontario, Canada, between 2015 and 2021. METHODS: Population-based linked health-care administrative databases were used to identify women with GDM via a validated algorithm. Age-standardized GDM prevalence was described for each year between 2015 and 2021. Crude GDM prevalence trends were stratified according to age and income, and trend over time was evaluated using negative binomial regression. RESULTS: Crude GDM prevalence was 9.5% within this period, with age-standardized prevalence increasing by 35% over the duration of the study (p<0.0001). Prevalence declined in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it rose again the next year. Prevalence was directly associated with age (p<0.0001) and inversely associated with income (p=0.04), but these disparities did not change over time. CONCLUSIONS: GDM prevalence is rising, but the transient decline in the first year of the pandemic may reflect forgone GDM screening. Disparities in prevalence by age and income are not worsening. GDM is creating a growing burden for the health-care system, particularly for lower income individuals.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.148

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Diabetes→Same topicGestational Diabetes Research and Management→French-language works237,207→