So far and yet so close: Quality of management of diabetes in Australian and Canadian indigenous communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To compare quality of clinical management of Indigenous people with diabetes in remote areas of Australia and Canada.\nDesign: Clinical audit of diabetes management.\nSetting: The Kimberley region of Western Australia and Northern Saskatchewan in Canada.\nSubjects: One hundred and two Saskatchewan and 142 Kimberley patients from seven and 11 primary health services, respectively.\nMain outcome measures: Indicators of quality of diabetes clinical management during the preceding two years.\nResults: Overall quality of management was poor. Retinopathy screening was better in the Kimberley than Saskatchewan (58% screened in the preceding two years cf 30%). Glycemic control of Saskatchewan patients was better than that of Kimberley patients (16% with optimal control vs. 9%).\nConclusions: Continuing efforts at the level of health service organisation, patient and staff education, and creative ways to reduce barriers to access, as well as primary prevention initiatives, are required to counter the devastating effect of diabetes on Indigenous communities.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".