Intensive Diabetes Management in Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes: The Importance of Intensive Follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Minimal information exists on the education and follow-up required to successfully initiate intensive diabetes management (IDM) in adolescents with type 1 diabetes. We performed a retrospective analysis of HbA1c 3 and 15 months after initiation of IDM in two cohorts: (1) 17 patients who received individualised education in IDM and intensive early follow-up, and (2) 11 patients who participated in group education for initiation of IDM with standard follow-up. Entry HbA1c was higher in the individualised education patients (9.5 +/- 0.3% [mean +/- SE] versus 8.2 +/- 0.4%, p = 0.02). After 3 months of IDM, HbA1c improved in both cohorts reaching similar levels (individualised: 7.0 +/- 0.1%, p < 0.0001 vs entry; group: 7.3 +/- 0.2%, p = 0.05). During the following year, with routine follow-up for both cohorts, HbA1c levels rose approximately 1% as patients reverted to a multiple daily injection regimen. Irrespective of the educational approach, we believe maintenance of IDM and optimal HbA1c requires long-term intensive follow-up.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".