Diabetes and the risk of cardiovascular events and all‐cause mortality among older adults: an individual participant data analysis of five prospective studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Guidelines and studies provide conflicting information on whether type 2 diabetes (T2D) should be considered a coronary heart disease risk (CHD) equivalent in older adults. METHODS: We synthesized participant-level data on 82,723 individuals aged ≥65 years from five prospective studies in two-stage meta-analyses. We estimated multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of T2D (presence versus absence) on a primary composite outcome defined as cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were the components of the composite. We evaluated CHD risk equivalence by comparing outcomes between individuals with T2D but no CHD versus CHD but no T2D. RESULTS: The median age of participants was 71 years, 20% had T2D and 17% had CHD at baseline. A total of 29,474 participants (36%) experienced the composite outcome. Baseline T2D was associated with higher risk of cardiovascular events or all-cause mortality versus no T2D (HR 1.44, 95% CI [1.40-1.49]). The association was weaker in individuals aged ≥75 years versus 65-74 years (HR 1.32 [1.19-1.46] vs. 1.56 [1.50-1.62]; p-value for interaction = .032). Compared to individuals with CHD but no T2D, individuals with T2D but no CHD had a similar risk of the composite outcome (HR 0.95 [0.85-1.07]), but a lower risk of cardiovascular events (HR 0.76 [0.59-0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: T2D was associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in older adults, but T2D without CHD conferred lower risk of cardiovascular events compared to CHD without T2D. Our results suggest that T2D should not be considered a CHD risk equivalent in older adults.
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 | 0.028 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".