Study of TCM Syndrome Identification Modes for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Based on Data Mining
Table 1
Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics between the SHF syndrome and QYD syndrome.
Total
T2-DM syndrome
Statistics value
P value
SHF syndrome (n = 261)
QYD syndrome (n = 293)
Gender
N (%)
N (%)
Male
162 (62.1)
141 (48.1)
10.834
0.001
Female
99 (37.9)
152 (51.9)
Age (years)
<40
36 (13.8)
24 (8.2)
11.422
0.003
40–60
154 (59.0)
153 (52.2)
>60
71 (27.2)
116 (39.6)
M (Q1, Q3)
56.0 (48.0, 61.0)
57.7 (51.0, 66.0)
3.558
<0.001
Education (years)
6
28 (10.7)
42 (14.3)
4.774
0.092
12
203 (77.8)
231 (78.8)
≥13
30 (11.5)
20 (6.9)
Occupation
White collar
223 (85.4)
251 (85.7)
0.006
0.940
Blue collar
38 (14.6)
42 (14.3)
Ethnic
Han nationality
256 (98.1)
290 (99.0)
0.272
0.602
Others
5 (1.9)
3 (1.0)
Marital status
Married
225 (86.2)
233 (79.5)
4.306
0.038
Unmarried
36 (13.8)
60 (20.5)
Past medical history
Yes
93 (35.6)
85 (29.0)
2.776
0.096
None
168 (64.4)
208 (71.0)
Family history
Yes
132 (50.6)
144 (49.1)
0.113
0.737
None
129 (49.4)
149 (50.9)
∗Female patients with T2-DM are more prone to develop QYD syndrome, while male patients with T2-DM are more likely to develop SHF syndrome. Elderly patients with T2-DM are more prone to develop QYD syndrome, while young and middle-aged diabetic patients are more likely to develop SHF syndrome. The ratio of SHF syndrome of married patients with T2-DM is higher than that of QYD syndrome.
