MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system in diabetic dogs

2003· article· en· W2059569664 on OpenAlexaff
Lucy J. Davison, Linda A. Slater, M. E. Herrtage, David B. Church, Stephen Judge, Jelena Ristić, Briän Catchpole

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Small Animal Practice · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePostprandialInterstitial fluidContinuous glucose monitoringDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineInsulinBlood glucose monitoringAnesthesiaEndocrinologyType 1 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generation of a blood glucose curve is important for assessing the response to insulin therapy in diabetic dogs. Disadvantages of this technique include patient discomfort and the potential for missing transient hypo- or hyperglycaemic episodes. The aim of the current study was to evaluate a continuous glucose monitoring system (CGMS) for use in diabetic dogs. Interstitial fluid glucose concentrations were recorded in 10 diabetic dogs, every five minutes for up to 48 hours, using a subcutaneous sensor attached to the CGMS device. Blood glucose concentrations were measured simultaneously using a glucometer. The correlation between interstitial fluid and blood glucose values was 0.81 (P < 0.01). The largest discrepancies between the two sets of data were seen during the one- to three-hour period following feeding, suggesting that postprandial hyperglycaemia might not be reflected in the interstitial fluid. The authors conclude that the CGMS is a potentially valuable tool in the management of canine diabetic patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Small Animal PracticeSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207