Using Hemoglobin A1c to Derive Mean Blood Glucose in Peritoneal Dialysis Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b><i>Background:</i></b> Although hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) has been widely used as a clinical assessment tool for outcome analyses related to glycemic control, the relationship between HbA1c and average blood glucose (BG) specific to peritoneal dialysis (PD) patients with diabetes has not been characterized. We sought to develop HbA1c-BG equation models for PD patients. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We examined associations between HbA1c and random serum BG values over time in a contemporary 5-year (2001-2006) cohort of DaVita PD patients with diabetes. We identified 850 patients (mean age: 58 ± 13 years, 56% male) with 4,566 paired measurements of HbA1c and BG. The bootstrapping method was used to estimate average BG and corresponding HbA1c. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Linear regression analyses yielded the following HbA1c-BG equations: (1) BG (mg/dl) = 24.1 + 28.6 × HbA1c - 12.2 × albumin [adjusted R<sup>2</sup> (R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub> = 0.454)], (2) BG = 55.3 + 28.8 × HbA1c - 10.2 × albumin - 3.3 × Hb (R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub> = 0.457), and (3) BG = 69.5 + 28.7 × HbA1c - 10.1 × albumin - 3.7 × Hb - 0.1 × age + race/ethnicity (-10.1 African Americans, -5.4 other race/ethnicities; R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub> = 0.457). All models showed greater explanatory power of BG variation than previously established HbA1c-BG equation models defined within non-PD cohorts [R<sup>2</sup><sub>adj</sub> = 0.446 for both the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT) and the A1c-Derived Average Glucose (ADAG) equations]. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The association between HbA1c and BG in PD patients is different than that of patients with normal kidney function. Our analysis suggests that equations incorporating serum albumin and/or Hb values better estimate the HbA1c-BG relationship in PD patients compared to equations using HbA1c alone.
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 | 0.000 | 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".