Review: behavioural interventions have a small to medium beneficial effect on diabetes management in adolescents with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hampson SE, Skinner TC, Hart J, et al. Behavioral interventions for adolescents with type 1 diabetes: how effective are they? Diabetes Care2000 Sep; 23 : 1416 –22 [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In adolescents with type 1 diabetes, how effective are behavioural interventions in improving management of diabetes? Studies were identified by searching 11 databases to June 1999; handsearching the journals Diabetes Care , Diabetic Medicine , and Practical Diabetes International ; contacting researchers in the field for published or unpublished work; and scanning reference lists for additional articles. Studies were selected if they were empirical studies involving participants 9–21 years of age with type 1 diabetes, and the study reported an evaluation of a behavioural intervention (≥1 of education, skills training, or any other form of behavioural or psychosocial intervention … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DDiabetes%2BCare%26rft.stitle%253DDiabetes%2BCare%26rft.aulast%253DHampson%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BE.%26rft.volume%253D23%26rft.issue%253D9%26rft.spage%253D1416%26rft.epage%253D1422%26rft.atitle%253DBehavioral%2Binterventions%2Bfor%2Badolescents%2Bwith%2Btype%2B1%2Bdiabetes%253A%2Bhow%2Beffective%2Bare%2Bthey%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.2337%252Fdiacare.23.9.1416%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10977043%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=diacare&resid=23/9/1416&atom=%2Febmental%2F4%2F2%2F46.atom
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".