That’s why I used the first online calculator I saw.
@Volucris thank you for your research and the correction. It’s difficult when an error is repeated in several journal articles. These are all supposed to be peer-reviewed so I don’t understand how the error was not caught and corrected.
Wendy
That’s the nature of the research environment these days. Well, it always has been in a way…and the original rationale for the retraction process. Whereby study authors who’ve made an honest mistake that wasn’t picked up prior to publication, or new data have become available since, could retract and revise the questionable stuff with the declaration of the error in the resubmission. This probably worked very well back in the days when there were far fewer journals around, peer reviewers were easy to find, and journal circulation was limited largely to folk with a fundamental knowledge base in the topic. This probably increased the odds of an error being caught mightily before it made its way into “general” circulation.
Constrast to nowadays. Date of publication for this review was January of this year…so in all probability the error is already on its way to correction. Not “hot off the press” … which is so commonplace nowadays, as study authors and their institutions promote their work via press ourlets … but possibly still too short a time for any corrected article to reach general interest leve.
Since this index was a new idea to me, I checked on the history of the index’s derivation (as I usually do with new-to-me concepts) … as far back as 2008, apparently! Exactly why I also checked to see if there were any online calculators available, assuming that, if it had any merit, there’d be some.
1 Like
@VeeEnn for the same reason, I also tracked back to the original 2008 article. But the Summary didn’t show the equation and the entire article was behind a paywall.
Wendy
Thinking about your sister, @WendyBG …has anyone looked into this? Or is she suffering from the curse of a Healthy Lifestyle?
Back when we still lived on LI, I would run with one of my neighbours (full disclosure…very easy recovery run for him - speedwork for me) He’d have been in his mid 30s at the time, quite a winning triathlete, very lean and all around fit…did sport specific weight training also. He had one of these odd stories that make you think…
He’d been on his college track team and before the season every year, the team had a full physical. About his 2nd year, everything else was normal…except his A1c. Fortunately for him, someone actually did think, “Now, that’s peculiar” and did some sort of workup. Turns out he had one of those late onset forms of diabetes that’re unrelated to self induced metabolic syndrome…Latent Autoimmune Diabetes of Adults, or something like. Was still controlled with oral meds at that time, but I would imagine he’s insulin dependent by now. No family history either.
Just an anecdote, but it goes to to there’s more to “diabetes” than what you think you know. I had to get a tutorial from dh before I could grasp it.
2 Likes
My number is 8.5.
It is high right now because of life style issues right now. I have straightened them out. The blood panel work was June 17.
I am type 2 diabetic. Life style has brought the number down under 8.7 which is where the diabetes alarms go off.
All of it is life style related for me.
Well, this is the rationale for my take on addressing these diseases with a long lead in time at the earliest point of departure from healthy homeostasis … or as close as possible. The tools to measure Red Flag biomarkers are becoming available…and known to folk with any sort of interest … at earlier and earlier stages on that continuum, and give the individual with access the opportunity to alter the course of events. Primary prevention, in other words.
As useful as the equation that’s the subject of this thread might be…or, say, the ASCVD equation, come to that … it makes no sense to me to be looking for yet another population wide risk predictor (as METAR as that might be) when the ones we have available for use in the individual are being ignored. Even by folk who ought to know better … i.e. PCPs
4 Likes