The Cardiometabolic Clinic: Bridging Gaps in Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While cardiometabolic disease is an increasingly common occurrence, there is evidence to suggest that many of these patients are not receiving optimal, evidence-based care. We set out to determine the effects of an integrated cardiometabolic clinic on the treatment of patients with cardiometabolic disease. Methods: This retrospective cohort study compared the University of Vermont Cardiometabolic Clinic with four primary care clinics in the same network. Major outcomes included adherence to goal-directed medication regimens, and control of hemoglobin A1c, body mass index (BMI) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL). Results: Our study found that over 6 to 18 months, the cardiometabolic clinic group had statistically significant improvement in medication regimens, with GLP1s started in 63% vs. 24.6% (P < 0.001), and SGLT2 inhibitors started in 47.7% vs. 10.8% (P < 0.001). The cardiometabolic clinic showed BMI reduction of -2.8 kg/m 2 vs. -0.5 kg/m 2 (P < 0.001), and an A1c reduction of -0.9% vs. -0.4% (P = 0.016). Conclusions: This study added to the literature showing cardiometabolic clinics could play an important role in treatment of this high-risk group. J Endocrinol Metab. 2024;14(5):221-225 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jem1018
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".