MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evaluation of a continuous glucose monitoring system in diabetic dogs

2003· article· en· W2059569664 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.249
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.006
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