MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100856393 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.1.10

Family focused teamwork prevented deterioration in diabetes control in children and adolescents

2004· letter· en· W2100856393 on OpenAlexaff
Cheri Ann Hernandez

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePediatricsGlycemicType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laffel LMB, Vangsness L, Connell A, et al . Impact of ambulatory, family-focused teamwork intervention on glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes. J Pediatr 2003;142:409–16.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In children and adolescents with recently diagnosed type 1 diabetes mellitus, does a family focused teamwork intervention improve glycaemic control and minimise diabetes related family conflict? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: {concealed}*. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {healthcare providers, outcome assessors, and data analysts}*. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 1 year. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 105 children 8–17 years of age (mean age 12 y, 53% boys) who were diagnosed with type 1 diabetes within the previous 6 years but without concurring serious illness, had ⩾1 visit to the Joslin Diabetes Center in the past year, and intended to have routine follow up diabetes care at the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BJournal%2Bof%2Bpediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BPediatr%26rft.aulast%253DLaffel%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D142%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D409%26rft.epage%253D416%26rft.atitle%253DImpact%2Bof%2Bambulatory%252C%2Bfamily-focused%2Bteamwork%2Bintervention%2Bon%2Bglycemic%2Bcontrol%2Bin%2Byouth%2Bwith%2Btype%2B1%2Bdiabetes.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1067%252Fmpd.2003.138%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12712059%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1067/mpd.2003.138&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12712059&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F1%2F10.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000182733800012&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207