HbA1c as a Postmortem Tool to Identify Glycemic Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates suggest that more than 5A million U.S. citizens unknowingly have diabetes and are at increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We evaluated an immunoturbidimetric measurement of glycated hemoglobin (%HbA1c) as a postmortem tool to identify such individuals. Although postmortem samples undergo some degradation, the effects are not sufficient to invalidate the use of the test or method. Using two study populations whose medical history of diabetes was known, we found the mean %HbA1c of the non-diabetics (5.8+/-0.3) to be statistically different from that of the diabetics (12.4+/-2.8). For the population whose disease status was unknown, the %HbA1c ranged from 4.7 to 16.8. For six unknowns whose values exceeded 7.0%. the mean was 11.7%, which did not differ statistically from the diabetic mean (p = 0.6615). These studies suggest that postmortem blood samples can be used to characterize HbA1c values.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".