Long-Term Insulin Pump Treatment in Girls with Type 1 Diabetes and Eating Disorders—Is It Feasible?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study evaluated the feasibility of insulin pump treatment in adolescent girls with type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) and eating disorders (ED). METHODS: Sixty-three girls >10 years old were included in the study. Forty-eight were treated with pump (no-ED-pump group); 15 had ED, of whom eight were treated with pump (ED-pump group), and seven were treated with multiple daily injections (MDI) (ED-MDI group). RESULTS: Girls in the ED-pump group had higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) compared to those in the no-ED-pump group both before and after pump initiation (P = 0.007). In the ED-pump group, levels 0-6 months after pump initiation were slightly but not significantly lower compared to baseline reference values (8.48% vs. 8.84%, respectively; P = 0.42). In the no-ED-pump group there was a significant decrease in HbA1c level 0-6 months after pump initiation (8.03% vs. 7.67%, respectively; P = 0.004). Thereafter HbA1c levels were not different from baseline reference on both groups. The rate of hypoglycemic episodes was similar in the ED pump and no-ED-pump groups (0.9 vs. 1.0 episodes per 100 patient-years, respectively). Prior to diagnosis of ED, mean HbA1c levels in the ED-pump group and the ED-MDI group were similar: 9.24 ± 1.25% versus 8.47 ± 1.30% (P = 0.51). In the time intervals after the diagnosis of ED, mean HbA1c level of all measurements in the eight girls in the ED-pump group was significantly lower compared with the seven patients in the ED-MDI group: 9.07 ± 1.33% versus 10.40 ± 2.01% (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with an insulin pump was feasible in girls with T1DM and ED and resulted in significantly lower HbA1c levels compared to the ED-MDI group.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".