Erroneous Diabetes Diagnosis: A Case of HbA1c Interference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 66-year-old Caucasian female was referred for specialist follow-up of her treatment-refractory type 2 diabetes. The diagnosis was made based on two consecutive HbA1c results >6.5% (48 mmol/mol) in accordance with the Canadian Diabetes Association and the American Diabetes Association guidelines (1,2). Fasting glucose was normal and hyperglycemic symptoms were absent at diagnosis. The patient’s hematological indices were normal and she was unaware of any family history of hemoglobinopathy. Her glycemic control proved difficult to manage, with persistently elevated HbA1c (10.8–11.2% [95–99 mmol/mol]) despite treatment with metformin and, eventually, insulin glargine. Further, with treatment, the patient began to experience symptoms of episodic hypoglycemia. A fasting glucose of 84.6 mg/dL (4.8 mmol/L) obtained at the same time as an HbA1c of 11.2% (99 mmol/mol) triggered suspicion of interference. As all of the HbA …
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".