Family focused teamwork prevented deterioration in diabetes control in children and adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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] Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: {concealed}*. ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: blinded {healthcare providers, outcome assessors, and data analysts}*. ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: 1 year. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: Joslin Diabetes Center in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. ### ![Graphic][10] 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".