SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS AS PREDICTORS OF DIABETIC RETINOPATHY SCREENING
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review investigates how sociodemographic factors influence diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening adherence among individuals with diabetes. The review examines individuals with diabetes as the target population, focusing on the impact of various sociodemographic exposures on DR screening uptake. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic search was conducted across Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2024. The primary outcome was the overall rate of DR screening among individuals, while secondary outcomes included the odds ratios or proportions of individuals screened for DR, stratified by sociodemographic factors. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included, spanning more than 100,000 participants. Older age, higher education, higher income, and private insurance were consistently associated with higher screening adherence. Employed individuals, particularly those in manual labor or with rigid schedules, had lower participation. Women generally showed higher adherence, although findings varied. Ethnic disparities were observed, with Black and Hispanic populations demonstrating lower screening rates. Geographic distance and travel burden were frequently reported barriers. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates that sociodemographic factors significantly affect DR screening adherence. Strengths include the broad geographic scope and diversity of populations studied. Limitations involve study heterogeneity and occasional reliance on self-reported data.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it