MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416904854 · doi:10.3390/diabetology6120152

Complications and Comorbidities in Individuals >80 Years with Diabetes: A Scoping Review

2025· article· en· W4416904854 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christian Ward-Bradley, Tünde Pető, Laura Cushley, Katie Curran

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsDiabetes mellitusMEDLINEQuality of life (healthcare)ComorbidityPopulationPopulation ageingSystematic reviewPsycINFO

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background/Objectives: Diabetes mellitus is increasingly prevalent among adults aged over 80 years; however, this population remains substantially underrepresented in clinical research on diabetes complications. This scoping review synthesises current evidence on diabetes-related complications and comorbidities in this older age group (>80 years), reported prevalence, and key evidence gaps. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science was conducted for studies published between 1992 and 2024 reporting diabetes-related complications in individuals aged ≥80 years. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted and summarised using narrative synthesis, and descriptive statistics (SPSS v29) were conducted. Results: Fifty-one studies were included, comprising 17,630,083 individuals aged ≥80 years. Macrovascular complications were most frequently reported, followed by microvascular and peripheral outcomes. Hypertension was the most reported comorbidity. Macrovascular outcomes were assessed in over 17 million individuals, while microvascular complications were studied in fewer than 400,000. Only five studies focused exclusively on adults aged ≥80 years. Reporting was also limited by retrospective designs, heterogeneity in definitions, and frequent omission of key variables, including diabetes duration, HbA1c, frailty, and cognitive status. Conclusions: There is a critical mismatch between research focus and the complications most relevant to function and quality of life in older populations with diabetes. Easily measurable yet clinically impactful outcomes, such as retinopathy, neuropathy, nephropathy, and foot disease, remain under-investigated in this cohort. Standardised, age-stratified reporting that incorporates functional and geriatric domains is needed to inform person-centred care in this expanding population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207