phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | a disease whose presence is decided by cut-offs on continuous blood measurements, so that the count of people who have it moves when the cut-offs or the assays change— “The increase in prevalence could also be partially attributable to the new diagnostic criteria, with reduced cut-off points for blood glucose and the addition of glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria are shown in table 1 . The main difference between them… | |
| claim-type | existence— “The weighted prevalence of total diabetes (n=9772), self-reported diabetes (n=4464), newly diagnosed diabetes (n=5308), and prediabetes (n=27 230) diagnosed by the ADA criteria were 12.8% (95% confidence interval 12.0% to 13.6%), 6.0% (5.4% to 6.7%), 6.8% (6.1% to 7.4%), and 35.2% (33.5% to 37.0%), respectively, among adults living in China.… | |
| method — evidence | — “This epidemiological study, the Thyroid disorders, Iodine status and Diabetes Epidemiological survey (TIDE study), included all 31 provinces of mainland China with a sample of 75 880 people according to the age and sex composition of each community and the urban-rural ratio using the latest national census data. The study was conducted… | |
| object of study — evidence | — “This large national survey indicated that 11.2% of adults (according to WHO criteria) or 12.8% of adults (ADA criteria including the addition of HbA 1c ) aged 18 and older living in China had diabetes in 2017. Thus the total number of patients with diabetes in mainland China is estimated to be 129.8 million (70.4 million men and 59.4 million… | |
| research question — evidence | — “The increase in prevalence could also be partially attributable to the new diagnostic criteria, with reduced cut-off points for blood glucose and the addition of glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria are shown in table 1 . The main difference between them… | |
| contribution — evidence | — “The weighted prevalence of total diabetes (n=9772), self-reported diabetes (n=4464), newly diagnosed diabetes (n=5308), and prediabetes (n=27 230) diagnosed by the ADA criteria were 12.8% (95% confidence interval 12.0% to 13.6%), 6.0% (5.4% to 6.7%), 6.8% (6.1% to 7.4%), and 35.2% (33.5% to 37.0%), respectively, among adults living in China.… | |
| mechanism | THE SAME PEOPLE, TWO DEFINITIONS, 1.6 PERCENTAGE POINTS APART: `This large national survey indicated that 11.2% OF ADULTS (according to WHO criteria) OR 12.8% OF ADULTS (ADA criteria including the addition of HbA1c) aged 18 and older living in China had diabetes in 2017. Thus the total number of patients with diabetes in mainland China is estimated to be 129.8 MILLION.` One survey, one blood draw, two answers - and on a population this size the gap between them is on the order of eighteen million adults. simonneau2018 moved a threshold and did not estimate who it admitted; this paper simply reports both— “This large national survey indicated that 11.2% of adults (according to WHO criteria) or 12.8% of adults (ADA criteria including the addition of HbA 1c ) aged 18 and older living in China had diabetes in 2017. Thus the total number of patients with diabetes in mainland China is estimated to be 129.8 million (70.4 million men and 59.4 million… | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | AND THE PAPER SAYS THE TREND IS PARTLY THE DEFINITION, IN ITS INTRODUCTION: `The increase in prevalence could also be partially attributable to the new diagnostic criteria, with reduced cut-off points for blood glucose and the addition of glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) ... The main difference between them is the inclusion of HbA1c in the ADA criteria.` The rise in a disease is stated as partly an artefact of how the disease is defined, by the people measuring the rise— “The increase in prevalence could also be partially attributable to the new diagnostic criteria, with reduced cut-off points for blood glucose and the addition of glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c ). The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria are shown in table 1 . The main difference between them… | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | THE HEADLINE HISTORICAL SERIES CROSSES TWO RULERS MID-WAY: `The prevalence of diabetes in adults living in China increased from 0.67% using the WHO criteria in 1980 to 10.9% using the ADA criteria in 2013.` A sixteenfold rise reported across a change of diagnostic criteria, with both criteria named in the same sentence. The paper's own caveat about differing sampling and screening methods follows immediately and is OUTSIDE THIS SPAN - it is separated from this clause by a run of seven citation numbers in the staged text.— “The prevalence of diabetes in adults living in China increased from 0.67% using the WHO criteria in 1980 to 10.9% using the ADA criteria in 2013.” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | AND THE LIKE-FOR-LIKE SERIES IS PRINTED SEPARATELY, WHICH IS THE REPAIR: `The weighted prevalence of total diabetes diagnosed by the WHO criteria has been increasing from 9.7% in 2007 and 2010, to 10.4% in 2013, and to 11.2% in this study in 2017 ... The prevalence of prediabetes was 35.2%, which was similar to the 35.7% reported in 2013 with the same ADA diagnostic criteria.` Every comparison in the discussion names which criteria it holds fixed - `under the same WHO diagnostic criteria`, `with the same ADA diagnostic criteria`. That phrase is the whole methodological contribution— “The weighted prevalence of total diabetes diagnosed by the WHO criteria has been increasing from 9.7% in 2007 and 2010, to 10.4% in 2013, and to 11.2% in this study in 2017 (supplementary table 4). 11 12 13 The prevalence of prediabetes was 35.2%, which was similar to the 35.7% reported in 2013 with the same ADA diagnostic criteria.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | AND THE SURVEY DEFINITION IS NOT THE CLINICAL ONE, WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE ERROR NAMED: `we did not carry out repeat testing in people with abnormal glucose values over time. We categorised one reading as being synonymous with diabetes, which may overestimate the prevalence, compared with clinical practice.` donnelly2019 says a research definition must not guide care; this says the research definition and the clinical one give different answers, and which way— “Fourthly, we did not carry out repeat testing in people with abnormal glucose values over time. We categorised one reading as being synonymous with diabetes, which may overestimate the prevalence, compared with clinical practice.” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | AND A THRESHOLD IS FLAGGED AS IMPORTED FROM ANOTHER POPULATION: `using levels of 6.5% for HbA1c to diagnose diabetes could be controversial since that level was set for the US population. Although geographic disparities might exist in HbA1c LEVELS, A consistent threshold was preferred across the study to enable comparison.` The choice is comparability over local validity, and it is stated as a choice - which is the same trade parks2021 makes for species and polman2011 refuses for CSF status— “Secondly, using levels of 6.5% for HbA 1c to diagnose diabetes could be controversial since that level was set for the US population. Although geographic disparities might exist in HbA 1c levels, a consistent threshold was preferred across the study to enable comparison.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | AND THE GEOGRAPHIC SPREAD DWARFS THE DEFINITIONAL GAP: `In Inner Mongolia, the prevalence of total diabetes was three times higher than that in Guizhou province. For prediabetes, Yunnan province had the highest prevalence, being three times higher than the lowest prevalence in Anhui province.` 6.2% to 19.9% across provinces against 11.2% versus 12.8% across definitions. Both are real, and only one of them is usually reported as uncertainty— “Among the 31 provinces of mainland China, a large variation in the prevalence of diabetes and prediabetes was found. In Inner Mongolia, the prevalence of total diabetes was three times higher than that in Guizhou province. For prediabetes, Yunnan province had the highest prevalence, being three times higher than the lowest prevalence in Anhui… | mechanisms[6] |
| mechanism | AND THE ETHNIC DIFFERENCES ARE MEASURED AGAINST ONE REFERENCE GROUP: `the prevalence of total diabetes and prediabetes in four ethnic groups was significantly different from that in the Han ethnic group. Compared with the Han ethnic group, the Tibetan ethnic group had a significantly lower prevalence of diabetes.` Han 12.8%, Hui 6.3% - a twofold range inside one country, under one definition, in one survey— “This study found that the prevalence of total diabetes and prediabetes in four ethnic groups was significantly different from that in the Han ethnic group. Compared with the Han ethnic group, the Tibetan ethnic group had a significantly lower prevalence of diabetes, which was consistent with the findings of a previous study.” | mechanisms[7] |
| mechanism | AND A HISTORICAL EXPOSURE IS OFFERED FOR THE AGE GRADIENT: `One study showed that prenatal exposure to famine markedly increased the risk of hyperglycaemia in two consecutive generations of adults living in China. Given that the Chinese famine of 1959-61 was among the most severe on record, the affected population comprises those with a current age of 50 and older, who showed a higher prevalence.` The paper adds `Whether or not prenatal exposure to famine affects diabetes remains controversial`— “One study showed that prenatal exposure to famine markedly increased the risk of hyperglycaemia in two consecutive generations of adults living in China. Given that the Chinese famine of 1959–61 was among the most severe on record, the affected population comprises those with a current age of 50 and older, who showed a higher prevalence of… | mechanisms[8] |
| mechanism | AND THE RURAL RISE IS TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE URBAN ONE, UNDER ONE DEFINITION: `Compared with the national study conducted in 2013, the current prevalence of diabetes increased by 1% in urban areas but by 2.5% in rural areas under the same ADA diagnostic criteria.` `Under the same criteria` is what makes the comparison mean anything, and the paper says it every time— “Compared with the national study conducted in 2013, the current prevalence of diabetes increased by 1% in urban areas but by 2.5% in rural areas under the same ADA diagnostic criteria.” | mechanisms[9] |
| mechanism | AND AWARENESS AND PREVALENCE MOVE IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS INSIDE ONE TOTAL: `Although a continuing increase in self-reported diabetes was found, a decrease in the prevalence of newly diagnosed diabetes was noted under the same WHO diagnostic criteria ..., suggesting better awareness of diabetes.` The same total can rise while its two components move apart, and only the split shows that the health system changed rather than the disease— “Although a continuing increase in self-reported diabetes was found, a decrease in the prevalence of newly diagnosed diabetes was noted under the same WHO diagnostic criteria (supplementary table 4), suggesting better awareness of diabetes than found in previous studies.” | mechanisms[10] |
| extends | the 2007, 2010 and 2013 Chinese national diabetes surveys, whose WHO-criteria series this study continues with a like-for-like estimate— “The weighted prevalence of total diabetes diagnosed by the WHO criteria has been… | claim_relations[0] |
| critiques | the historical series that runs from 0.67% in 1980 to 10.9% in 2013 across different criteria and different sampling methods Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| critiques | the survey convention of a single reading, which 'may overestimate the prevalence, compared with clinical practice' and is general to the literature Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[2] |
| extends | the International Diabetes Federation's atlas estimate of 113.9 million adults with diabetes in China, against which this study's 129.8 million is set Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | `total diabetes`, ADA 2018 - self-reported diagnosis plus newly diagnosed by fasting glucose >=7.0 mmol/L, two-hour glucose >=11.1 mmol/L, **or HbA1c >=6.5%** Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[0] |
| sense | `total diabetes`, WHO - the same, WITHOUT the HbA1c route. `The main difference between them is the inclusion of HbA1c in the ADA criteria` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | `newly diagnosed diabetes` (survey sense) - ONE reading, not the repeat testing of clinical practice: `We categorised one reading as being synonymous with diabetes` Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | `prediabetes`, ADA - impaired fasting glucose OR impaired glucose tolerance OR HbA1c 5.7-6.4%, giving 35.2% of Chinese adults Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| control | computing and reporting the prevalence under BOTH the ADA and WHO criteria from the same participants — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a reader having to guess how much of a national figure is the definition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| control | attaching 'under the same WHO diagnostic criteria' or 'with the same ADA diagnostic criteria' to every comparison with an earlier survey — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out a trend that is really a change of definition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| control | keeping one HbA1c threshold across all provinces and ethnicities although it was derived in a different population — partial Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out internal incomparability between the study's own subgroups Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| control | naming both known selection biases and their shared direction — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. — rules out an unsigned uncertainty - both the single reading and the excluded migrant workers push the estimate up Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[3] |
| weight | the 2007, 2010 and 2013 Chinese national diabetes surveys, whose WHO-criteria series this study continues with a like-for-like estimate — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[0] |
| weight | the historical series that runs from 0.67% in 1980 to 10.9% in 2013 across different criteria and different sampling methods — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[1] |
| weight | the survey convention of a single reading, which 'may overestimate the prevalence, compared with clinical practice' and is general to the literature — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[2] |
| weight | the International Diabetes Federation's atlas estimate of 113.9 million adults with diabetes in China, against which this study's 129.8 million is set — 0.8 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| note | The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria —distinct-from→ World Health Organization (WHO) criteria — 'The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria…' The cleanest natural experiment on a definition in the corpus: same people, same day, same laboratory, two answers - and the paper reports both rather than choosing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| relation | The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria —distinct-from→ World Health Organization (WHO) criteria — the two differ by one route to diagnosis - HbA1c - and that single difference moves the national prevalence from 11.2% to 12.8% in the same participants Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria —distinct-from→ World Health Organization (WHO) criteria — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | the new diagnostic criteria —causes→ The increase in prevalence — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says the increase COULD ALSO BE PARTIALLY attributable to the new criteria; hedged. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| note | the new diagnostic criteria —causes→ The increase in prevalence — 'The increase in prevalence…' A causal claim about an epidemiological trend whose cause is a committee. 'Partially' is unquantified here and quantified later by the like-for-like WHO series Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| relation | the new diagnostic criteria —causes→ The increase in prevalence — part of the measured rise in diabetes is attributed to the criteria themselves - lower cut-offs and the addition of HbA1c - rather than to more disease Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | the new diagnostic criteria —causes→ The increase in prevalence — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | one reading —same-as→ diabetes — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the paper CATEGORISED one reading as diabetes; operationalised-as would fit better than same-as. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| note | one reading —same-as→ diabetes — 'WE CATEGORISED…' An equivalence asserted for operational reasons and disavowed in the same breath - tagged because the paper states it as its own procedure, with the disavowal in the note. The 'what is already known' box generalises it to the whole survey literature Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| relation | one reading —same-as→ diabetes — the survey treats a single abnormal measurement as the disease, and says in the same sentence that this overestimates prevalence against clinical practice Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | one reading —same-as→ diabetes — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| note | Inner Mongolia —contrasted-with→ Guizhou province — 'In Inner Mongolia…' Worth holding beside the definitional gap: the national figure of 12.8%, which the paper gives elsewhere, describes no province particularly well, and the choice of criteria moves it by about a tenth of the internal range Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| relation | Inner Mongolia —contrasted-with→ Guizhou province — prevalence runs from 6.2% to 19.9% across provinces under one definition - a threefold spread against the 1.6-point spread between definitions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | Inner Mongolia —contrasted-with→ Guizhou province — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| note | the Tibetan ethnic group —distinct-from→ the Han ethnic group — 'Compared with the Han…' Four candidate explanations and no way to separate them in a cross-section, which the paper does not claim to do Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| relation | the Tibetan ethnic group —distinct-from→ the Han ethnic group — Tibetan participants had significantly lower diabetes prevalence than the Han reference group, consistent with an earlier survey Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| weight | the Tibetan ethnic group —distinct-from→ the Han ethnic group — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| audit | prenatal exposure to famine —causes→ the risk of hyperglycaemia — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but attributed: the span reports what 'one study showed'. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| note | prenatal exposure to famine —causes→ the risk of hyperglycaemia — 'One study showed…' The paper immediately adds 'WHETHER OR NOT…', so this edge carries a lower weight and its own contradiction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| relation | prenatal exposure to famine —causes→ the risk of hyperglycaemia — prenatal famine exposure is reported to raise hyperglycaemia risk in two generations, which would place the effect in exactly the cohort now aged 50+ Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| weight | prenatal exposure to famine —causes→ the risk of hyperglycaemia — 0.85 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[5] |
| note | urban areas —contrasted-with→ rural areas — 'the national…' 'Under the same ADA diagnostic criteria' is the clause that makes the comparison legitimate, and this paper attaches it to every historical comparison it makes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[6] |
| relation | urban areas —contrasted-with→ rural areas — since 2013 prevalence rose by 1% in urban and 2.5% in rural China under unchanged criteria, closing a gap that used to run the other way Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[6] |
| weight | urban areas —contrasted-with→ rural areas — 0.95 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[6] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| outcome | control — partial Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| outcome | control — held Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[3] |
| limitation | ONE READING IS TREATED AS THE DISEASE: `we did not carry out repeat testing in people with abnormal glucose values over time. We categorised one reading as being synonymous with diabetes, which may overestimate the prevalence, compared with clinical practice.` The `what is already known` box says the same of the whole literature: `Such surveys generally use a single reading ..., rather than repeat readings which are typical in clinical practice`. Every national prevalence figure for this disease is computed under a definition nobody uses on a patient Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | AND THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE WHOLE SURVEY LITERATURE, IN THE PAPER'S OWN `What is already known` BOX: `Such surveys generally use A single reading of glucose or HbA1c, rather than repeat readings which are typical in clinical practice, where clinical diagnosis is based also on patient symptoms.` Every national prevalence figure for this disease is computed under a definition nobody uses on a patient, and the paper states it as background rather than as its own limitation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | AND THE HbA1c CUT-OFF WAS SET ELSEWHERE: `using levels of 6.5% for HbA1c to diagnose diabetes could be controversial since that level was set for the US population.` HbA1c is the ONLY difference between the two criteria, so the entire 1.6-point gap rests on a threshold imported from another population Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | AND A SIXTH OF THE COUNTRY IS OUTSIDE THE SAMPLE, IN A DIRECTION THE PAPER NAMES: `non-residents, such as internal migrant workers, who account for more than A SIXTH OF THE NATION'S TOTAL POPULATION and who were more likely to have A LOWER PREVALENCE of diabetes, were not included in the study owing to the study design. These limitations could lead to an overestimation of diabetes in the population.` Both named biases push the same way, and the paper adds them up out loud Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | AND THE COMPARABILITY THAT MAKES THE SERIES WORK IS ITSELF A DESIGN CHOICE: `a similar study design and statistical methods to those used previously make our findings more comparable with historical data. Although lacking a high quality national cohort to estimate the incidence of diabetes, our findings could add value to the assessment of diabetes epidemics.` A series of cross-sections is not an incidence, and the trend is a difference of prevalences rather than a measured flow Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[8] |
| quantity | 12.8% (ADA) and 11.2% (WHO) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 9.7% (2007 and 2010) -> 10.4% (2013) -> 11.2% (2017) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 0.67% (WHO, 1980) -> 10.9% (ADA, 2013) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 6.2% (Guizhou) to 19.9% (Inner Mongolia) — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 80,937 completed, 92.1% response, 75,880 analysed after 5,057 exclusions — Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| variable | HbA 1c Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | province Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[2] |
| definition | total diabetes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | prediabetes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| concept | The American Diabetes Association (ADA) criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; the definition that includes HbA1c, giving 12.8% Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | World Health Organization (WHO) criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; the definition that does not, giving 11.2% in the same people Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | The increase in prevalence — not defined in this paper's own words; the measured rise the paper partly attributes to the definition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | the new diagnostic criteria — not defined in this paper's own words; reduced cut-offs plus the addition of HbA1c Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | one reading — not defined in this paper's own words; a single measurement, the survey's operational test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| concept | diabetes — not defined in this paper's own words; the disease that reading is treated as equivalent to Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[5] |
| concept | Inner Mongolia — not defined in this paper's own words; the province with the highest prevalence, 19.9% Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[6] |
| concept | Guizhou province — not defined in this paper's own words; the lowest, 6.2% - a threefold range under one definition Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[7] |
| concept | the Tibetan ethnic group — not defined in this paper's own words; significantly lower prevalence than the reference group Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[8] |
| concept | the Han ethnic group — not defined in this paper's own words; the reference group, and the highest of the five at 12.8% Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[9] |
| concept | prenatal exposure to famine — not defined in this paper's own words; the 1959-61 famine, offered as an explanation for the age gradient Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[10] |
| concept | the risk of hyperglycaemia — not defined in this paper's own words; what it is reported to raise, across two generations Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[11] |
| concept | urban areas — not defined in this paper's own words; where prevalence rose 1% since 2013 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[12] |
| concept | rural areas — not defined in this paper's own words; where it rose 2.5%, under the same criteria Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[13] |
| a definitional difference reported as a number instead of a caveat | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| every historical comparison names the criteria it holds fixed | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| two biases, one direction | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824