Vitamin intake and its association with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among Malaysian adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vitamin deficiency could increase the prevalence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Thus, this study aimed to determine the association between dietary vitamin intake and the prevalence of T2DM among the Malaysian adult population. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 9,314 participants from Prospective Urban and Rural Epidemiology Study (PURE) conducted in Malaysia. The participants comprised of 43% (4003) males and 57% (5311) females with mean age of 51.2 ± 9.4 years old. Participants were classified into the T2DM group if they reported having been diagnosed with T2DM or had a glucose level of ≥ 7 mmol/L (fasting blood glucose) or ≥ 11.1 mmol/L (non-fasting blood glucose). A validated food frequency questionnaire was used to measure the participants' usual dietary intake. The intake of dietary vitamins A, B6, B9, B12, C, E, and K was calculated based on nutrient databases. RESULTS: The T2DM prevalence was 16.9% among Malaysian adult population. The prevalences of inadequate dietary vitamin intake were elevated for vitamins A (22.8%) and C (28.8%), and notably high for vitamins B6 (98.3%), B9 (100.0%), B12 (80.5%), E (91.3%), and K (82.2%). The intake of dietary vitamins B6, B9, B12, C, E, and K was significantly lower among T2DM patients compared to those without T2DM (p-value < 0.05) when adjusted for covariates. Additionally, higher intake of dietary vitamins A, B6, B9, B12, C, E, and K was significantly associated with a reduced prevalence of T2DM (p-value < 0.05) when adjusted for covariates. CONCLUSION: This study found an alarming deficiency of vitamins A, B6, B9, B12, C, E, and K in the dietary intake among the Malaysian adult population regardless of T2DM status. The dietary vitamin deficiency (vitamins B6, B9, B12, E, and K) was more susceptible among those with T2DM compared to non-T2DM. This study indicated that higher dietary vitamin intake (vitamins A, B6, B9, B12, C, E, and K) could benefit by reducing the prevalence of T2DM. Therefore, an adequate intake of dietary vitamins is crucial for this study population to reduce the prevalence of T2DM.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".