Post

There are entire articles written around the problem of why the prevalence of type 1 diabetes has risen - nutrition? toxins? - that don't even consider whether it might be because fewer patients are dying young & continue to be in the numerator. This should be step 1

27/8/26, 4:23 pm7 reposts85 likes

Matthew Russell

@matteomics.bsky.social

28 Aug

I once spend an entire afternoon puzzling over prevelence, incidence and lifetime risk.

Glen

@glensmore.bsky.social

3 Sept

Good point. A better measure would be number of newly diagnosed cases (say, in a year) divided by the number of those who are eligible to be so diagnosed.

Saloni

@scientificdiscovery.dev

27 Aug

There are also entire articles written around why more people are taking antidepressants today that don't distinguish between whether there are more new users or current users taking them for longer. Maybe prevalence is just a baffling concept.

Jimmy Hendricks

@jimismash.bsky.social

27 Aug

I know for people that have security clearances, even talking to a therapist was a risk, let alone getting a prescription for any psychological treatments.

Berna

@bernaboop.bsky.social

27 Aug

Are these articles for the general public? Do you call the authors of these articles out? Are they written by science-minded and/or medical journalists? How do we fix this problem?

Alessandro

@poli.sisti.ca

27 Aug

I understand why more people with type 1 diabetes would survive today compared to 1920, but have there been great strides in diabetes treatment since, say, 1980? I know very little about this

Saloni

@scientificdiscovery.dev

27 Aug

Yeah, though the papers I'm describing are more about the historical trend. To your question, there are longer lasting release methods, some disease modifying drugs that reduce the autoimmune attack, some hormones and GLP1s used as add-ons

Saloni

@scientificdiscovery.dev

27 Aug

But also that more could be surviving now even if treatment options didn't improve, if there was improved diagnosis or access