MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060576129 · doi:10.1089/dia.2012.0038

The Role of Comfort and Discomfort in Insulin Therapy

2012· review· en· W2060576129 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

VenueDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsLMC Diabetes & Endocrinology (Canada)
FundersBD
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicInsulinAnxietyDiabetes mellitusAnticipation (artificial intelligence)Intensive care medicineInternal medicinePsychiatryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the recognized importance of optimal insulin therapy, patient adherence to insulin therapy is an ongoing clinical care challenge. Insulin omission continues to be frequent and underestimated and has been correlated with poorer glycemic control and increased rates of diabetes-related complications. Insulin users consistently identify multiple factors that contribute to insulin injection-related anxiety and to non-adherence. Injection-related discomfort continues to bear a significant contribution. Over the last decade, with advances in needle manufacturing technology, shorter and narrower needles have been associated with progressively improving patient self-rating of injection discomfort. Consequently, patient surveys of insulin users show discomfort to rank in the bottom third of significant contributors by prevalence. However, healthcare providers (HCP) and family member care providers continue to demonstrate a high level of anticipated and perceived pain for the patient. HCP anxiety and pain anticipation are each associated with patient anxiety and may therefore play a significant contributing role in patient non-adherence.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.909

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.298 · 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