Do eating behaviors in the general population account for country variance in glycemic control among adolescents with diabetes: the Hvidoere Study Group and the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Hvidoere Study Group (HSG) has demonstrated major differences in glycemic control between pediatric diabetes centers which remain largely unexplained. This study investigates whether these differences are partly attributable to healthy eating norms in the background population. METHODS: The study involved adolescents from 18 countries from (i) the Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children study (HBSC) and (ii) the HSG. There were 94 387 participants from representative HBSC samples of 11-, 13- and 15-yr-olds and 1483 11- to 15-yr-old adolescents with diabetes from the HSG. The frequency of intake of fruit, vegetables, sweets, sugary soft drinks, and daily breakfast was compared between the two groups. The glycemic control of the adolescents in the HSG cohort was determined by measuring glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). RESULTS: Across countries in the HSBC survey, there was substantial variation in prevalence of healthy eating behavior and even greater variation between adolescents from the HSG centers. In all countries more adolescents with diabetes reported healthy eating behavior compared to national norms. In individuals healthy eating behavior had a significant effect on the individual level HbA1c. There was no significant correlation between the frequencies of these healthy eating behaviors at (i) the national level and (ii) diabetes center level and the center mean HbA1c. CONCLUSIONS: Although individual healthy eating behavior is associated with better glycemic control at the individual level, such eating behavior does not explain the center differences in HbA1c. Similarly, the reported healthy eating norm of the background populations does not explain the variation in glycemic control among centers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".