Impact of Bedtime Snack Composition on Prevention of Nocturnal Hypoglycemia in Adults With Type 1 Diabetes Undergoing Intensive Insulin Management Using Lispro Insulin Before Meals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of four bedtime (HS) snack compositions on nocturnal glycemic control, including frequency of hypoglycemia (<4 mmol/l) and morning hyperglycemia (>10 mmol/l), in adults with type 1 diabetes using lispro insulin before meals and NPH insulin at bedtime. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Substitutions of 15 g carbohydrate (one starch exchange) for an equivalent amount of uncooked cornstarch or pure protein were compared to a standard snack (control: two starch + one protein exchange) and to no snack (placebo) in 15 adults using a randomized, cross-over design. All snacks were equivalent in kcal, fat, and total available glucose. An intravenous facilitated hourly blood glucose sampling during the night (11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M.). RESULTS: The glycemic level at bedtime (<7, 7-10, and >10 mmol/l) mediated the effects observed. A total of 14 hypoglycemic episodes, in 60% of patients, and 23 morning hyperglycemic episodes occurred over 50 nights. Most hypoglycemic episodes (10 of 14, 71%) occurred with no snack compared to any snack (P < 0.001) and at HS levels of <7 mmol/l (P = 0.05). The standard and protein snacks resulted in no nocturnal hypoglycemia at all HS glucose levels (P < 0.001). Only HS glucose >10 mmol/l was protective against hypoglycemia, even in the absence of a snack (P = 0.05); 46% of morning hyperglycemic episodes were associated (r = 0.37, P = 0.07) with this HS glucose level. CONCLUSIONS: The need for and composition of an HS snack depends on the HS glucose such that no snack is necessary at levels >10 mmol/l. At levels between 7 and 10 mmol/l, any snack is advised, and at <7 mmol/l, a standard or protein snack is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".