MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4406229338 · doi:10.2196/60246

Disease Awareness in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes: Analysis of Baseline Data From the SMART-Finder Observational Study

2025· article· en· W4406229338 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christian Mueller, Thomas Neußer, Inga Thate-Waschke, Julia Nowicki, Tomasz Plominski, Regine Griesinger, Stefanie Kessner, Stéphan Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyPreprintType 2 diabetesBaseline (sea)DiseaseMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebEndocrinologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a common comorbidity of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Data on the determination of CKD-related biomarkers among patients with T2DM in a real-life setting within Germany are limited. Objective: We aimed to determine the prevalence of CKD and risk factors, availability of urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values, treatment satisfaction, and quality of life among patients with T2DM in Germany. Methods: SMART-Finder is a retrospective and prospective, observational, digital, patient-centered cohort study being performed as part of the routine use of an adherence-supporting app. This baseline analysis' observation period was from August to November 2023. Patients with T2DM in Germany who actively used the MyTherapy app; allowed push notifications; and documented use of diabetes medications, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, finerenone, and/or blood glucose test strips were eligible for inclusion. Study materials (background information, electronic consent form, and laboratory and electronic questionnaires) were provided to eligible patients via app push notifications. Participants completed an electronic case report form that included questions on their blood pressure; their most recent UACR, eGFR, and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) values in the past 12 months; the EQ-5D-5L; and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with a UACR of ≥30 mg/g. Results: Of 9527 invited eligible patients, 101 completed the electronic case report form (male: n=61; female: n=40; age: mean 54.2, SD 11.4 y). Of these, 1 female patient and 5 male patients reported their UACR values; 3 (all male) had a UACR of ≥30 mg/g. The remaining 95 patients reported that their health care professionals had not provided UACR measurements. Only 9 (8.9%) patients were aware of their latest eGFR values (3 patients: 15-44 mL/min/1.73 m2; 6 patients: 45-89 mL/min/1.73 m2), 90 provided HbA1c values (80 patients: ≥6.0%), 46 had a systolic blood pressure of ≥130 mm Hg, and 83 reported former or current nephrotoxic medication intake. The mean EQ-5D-5L index score was 0.7 (SD 0.3; range -0.1 to 1.0; 50 patients). The mean Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire score was 28.8 (SD 6.8; range 9.0-36.0; 49 patients). Conclusions: Patients with T2DM who were using an adherence-supporting app in Germany lacked awareness of CKD-related biomarkers but had high knowledge of self-manageable biomarkers (eg, blood pressure, serum fasting glucose, and HbA1c values). Our results suggest that treating physicians either do not test for UACRs and eGFRs or do not inform patients about the results. Nonadherence to diagnostic testing guidelines and a lack of physician-patient communication put patients at risk. Another reason for this health literacy imbalance may be the focus on HbA1c instead of kidney comorbidity in patient education material. Future goals for diabetes management must include guideline-compliant testing of CKD-related biomarkers and open physician-patient communication.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicChronic Kidney Disease and Diabetes→French-language works237,207→