Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe management of children's and adolescents' diabetes outlining standards of care compatible with current clinical practice. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: MEDLINE was searched using specified MeSH headings. Bibliographies of selected articles were used to find additional pertinent articles. Preference was given to randomized controlled trials, clinical practice guidelines, consensus statements, and task force recommendations. We also cite reviews of current practice regarding pediatric diabetes. MAIN MESSAGE: Managing children with diabetes presents a difficult challenge to parents and their advisors. Achieving good diabetic control is impossible unless parents are properly instructed in practical management of the disease. Children with diabetes should be managed quite differently from adults in several respects. Avoiding hypoglycemia is most important, particularly for preschool children. Higher target blood glucose levels than would be accepted for adults are both justifiable and necessary for preschool children. Controlling children's diabetes depends as much on personal factors and family adjustment as it does on insulin, food plans, and exercise. CONCLUSION: Diabetes mellitus is difficult to manage at any age. Managing children's diabetes successfully requires continuous education and encouragement of parents and children. Pediatric diabetes care teams and family physicians play a vital role in encouraging children to control their disease while participating fully in normal childhood activities.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".