MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102513889 · doi:10.2337/diacare.26.8.2329

Diabetes and Driving Mishaps

2003· article· en· W2102513889 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel J. Cox, J. Kim Penberthy, John Zrebiec, Katie Weinger, James E. Aikens, Brian M. Frier, Barbara A. Stetson, Mary DeGroot, Paula M. Trief, Hartmut Schaechinger, Norbert Hermanns, Linda Gonder‐Frederick, William L. Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesU.S. Public Health ServiceMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineHypoglycemiaDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesSpouseGlycemicIncidence (geometry)InsulinType 1 diabetesInternal medicineEmergency medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The intensive treatment of diabetes to achieve strict glycemic control is a common clinical goal, but it is associated with an increased incidence of hypoglycemia. Becoming hypoglycemic while driving is a hazardous condition and may lead to a greater incidence of driving mishaps. This study investigated whether diabetes is associated with increased risk of driving mishaps and correlates of such a relationship. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: During routine visits to diabetes specialty clinics in seven U.S. and four European cities, consecutive adults with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes, and nondiabetic spouse control subjects (n = 341, 332, and 363, respectively) completed an anonymous questionnaire concerning diabetes and driving. RESULTS: Type 1 diabetic drivers reported significantly more crashes, moving violations, episodes of hypoglycemic stupor, required assistance, and mild hypoglycemia while driving as compared with type 2 diabetic drivers or spouse control subjects (P < 0.01-0.001). Type 2 diabetic drivers had driving mishap rates similar to nondiabetic spouses, and the use of insulin or oral agents for treatment had no effect on the occurrence of driving mishaps. Crashes among type 1 diabetic drivers were associated with more frequent episodes of hypoglycemic stupor while driving, less frequent blood glucose monitoring before driving, and the use of insulin injection therapy as compared with pump therapy. One-half of the type 1 diabetic drivers and three-quarters of the type 2 diabetic drivers had never discussed hypoglycemia and driving with their physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Type 1 diabetic drivers are at increased risk for driving mishaps, but type 2 diabetic drivers, even on insulin, appear not to be at a higher risk than nondiabetic individuals. Clinical and treatment factors appear to increase risk, e.g., more frequent hypoglycemia while driving, method of insulin delivery, and infrequent self-testing before driving. Physicians are encouraged to talk to their type 1 diabetic patients about hypoglycemia and driving.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.325
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations151
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207