Underuse of cardioprotective treatment by the elderly with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. – To assess whether elderly patients with type 2 diabetes use a comprehensive cardioprotective regimen (CCR) of antihypertensive, lipid-lowering and antiplatelet drugs in the year following oral antidiabetic drug initiation and, if so, to identify the determinants of such use. Methods. – Using the Quebec Diabetes Surveillance System administrative database, we carried out an inception cohort study of individuals aged 66 years and over who began oral antidiabetic therapy between 1998 and 2002. Those individuals with at least one claim in the year after starting antidiabetic treatment for an antihypertensive, a lipid-lowering and an antiplatelet drugs were deemed to be using a CCR. A multivariate logistic regression model was built to identify the characteristics associated with CCR use. Results. – Of the 48,505 individuals included in the study, 9912 (20.4%) used a CCR during the year following the first antidiabetic claim. Those more likely to use a CCR were men (odds ratio [OR]: 1.2; 99% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.1–1.3), those who had used an antihypertensive (1.6; 1.4–1.7), lipid-lowering (7.4; 6.8–8.0) or antiplatelet (7.3; 6.7–7.9) drug in the year before the first antidiabetic claim and those with a preexisting diagnosis of cardiovascular disease (1.9; 1.8–2.1). The odds of using a CCR increased every year. Conclusions. – CCR use by the elderly with type 2 diabetes in the year following antidiabetic initiation is low, and prior use of individual cardioprotective drugs is a strong predictor of its use. These findings suggest that the treatment of important modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease is suboptimal.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".