Continuing Stability of Center Differences in Pediatric Diabetes Care: Do Advances in Diabetes Treatment Improve Outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To reevaluate the persistence and stability of previously observed differences between pediatric diabetes centers and to investigate the influence of demography, language communication problems, and changes in insulin regimens on metabolic outcome, hypoglycemia, and ketoacidosis. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an observational cross-sectional international study in 21 centers, with clinical data obtained from all participants and A1C levels assayed in one central laboratory. All individuals with diabetes aged 11-18 years (49.4% female), with duration of diabetes of at least 1 year, were invited to participate. Fourteen of the centers participated in previous Hvidoere Studies, allowing direct comparison of glycemic control across centers between 1998 and 2005. RESULTS: Mean A1C was 8.2 +/- 1.4%, with substantial variation between centers (mean A1C range 7.4-9.2%; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between centers in rates of severe hypoglycemia or diabetic ketoacidosis. Language difficulties had a significant negative impact on metabolic outcome (A1C 8.5 +/- 2.0% vs. 8.2 +/- 1.4% for those with language difficulties vs. those without, respectively; P < 0.05). After adjustement for significant confounders of age, sex, duration of diabetes, insulin regimen, insulin dose, BMI, and language difficulties, the center differences persisted, and the effect size for center was not reduced. Relative center ranking since 1998 has remained stable, with no significant change in A1C. CONCLUSIONS: Despite many changes in diabetes management, major differences in metabolic outcome between 21 international pediatric diabetes centers persist. Different application between centers in the implementation of insulin treatment appears to be of more importance and needs further exploration.
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 | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".