Transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care: smooth or slippery?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the practices of diabetes health care providers concerning the transition from pediatric to adult diabetes care. The information presented here may help increase awareness of the organization of transitional care for young people with diabetes and prevent the loss of follow-up during this vulnerable period in their lives. METHODS: A questionnaire with an explanatory letter was sent to all members (n = 578) of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD). A follow-up mailing was sent 4 months later. RESULTS: In total, 92 questionnaires (16%) from members representing 36 countries were included in the analysis. In 76% of the centers, youth are seen until the age of 18 yr; 36% of the pediatric centers see adults > 25 yr; 30% report children under the age of 16 receive follow up from adult diabetologists or internists. About half of the programs already have a structured transition process usually targeting youth 16-25 yr of age. The majority of responders propose that preparation for transition starts at least 1 yr prior to leaving the pediatric center. CONCLUSION: Youth with type 1 diabetes often struggle to keep diabetes management a priority and find it challenging to maintain optimal metabolic control. When they graduate from pediatric care, some of these young people opt out of care altogether, only to resurface in the medical system when they develop complications which may have been prevented. Our survey of diabetes health care professionals in 36 countries worldwide shows that the actual transition practices in many places are far from optimal and require improvement. Transitional care should start early and strategies should promote uninterrupted, comprehensive, and accessible adult care.
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 | 0.008 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".