Provincially-Funded Insulin Pump Therapy and Glycaemic Control: Real-World Experience in London, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Limited “real-world” evidence exists supporting insulin pump therapy (IPT) benefits in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).\nMethods: A retrospective matched cohort study compared the change in glycated hemoglobin (A1C) and incidence of adverse events before and after IPT start in adults with T1DM at St. Joseph’s Healthcare in London, Ontario started on IPT between September 2008 – August 2011 to those of a matched control cohort. Paired t-tests, McNemar’s test and negative binomial regression were used.\nResults: 174 matched pairs were included. At 1 year, glycaemic control significantly improved in IPT users but not in controls—the mean paired difference in A1C change was -0.3% (p=0.041, n=133 pairs)—and severe hypoglycaemia was lower in IPT than controls (p=0.016).\nConclusions: Provincially-funded IPT in adults with T1DM was associated with clinically significant improvement in glycaemic control and severe hypoglycaemia, providing “real-world” evidence supporting continued IPT funding in adults with T1DM.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".