Target setting in intensive insulin management is associated with metabolic control: the Hvidoere Childhood Diabetes Study Group Centre Differences Study 2005
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate glycaemic targets set by diabetes teams, their perception by adolescents and parents, and their influence on metabolic control. METHODS: Clinical data and questionnaires were completed by adolescents, parents/carers and diabetes teams in 21 international centres. HbA1c was measured centrally. RESULTS: A total of 2062 adolescents completed questionnaires (age 14.4 +/- 2.3 yr; diabetes duration 6.1 +/- 3.5 yr). Mean HbA 1c = 8.2 +/- 1.4% with significant differences between centres (F = 12.3; p < 0.001) range from 7.4 to 9.1%. There was a significant correlation between parent (r = 0.20) and adolescent (r = 0.21) reports of their perceived ideal HbA1c and their actual HbA1c result (p < 0.001), and a stronger association between parents' (r = 0.39) and adolescents' (r = 0.4) reports of the HbA1c they would be happy with and their actual HbA1c result. There were significant differences between centres on parent and adolescent reports of ideal and happy with HbA1c (8.1 < F > 17.4;p < 0.001). A lower target HbA1c and greater consistency between members of teams within centres were associated with lower centre HbA1c (F = 16.0; df = 15; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clear and consistent setting of glycaemic targets by diabetes teams is strongly associated with HbA1c outcome in adolescents. Target setting appears to play a significant role in explaining the differences in metabolic outcomes between centres.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it