Intensive insulin treatment versus conventional regimen for adolescents with type 1 diabetes, benefits and risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to compare the frequencies of complications among adolescents with type 1 diabetes (age 12-18 years) treated with either intensive insulin regimen (4 injections per day) or conventional regimen (2 injections per day). METHODS: The study was carried out at the Children's Hospital, Quebec, Canada during the period 1997 to 1999. This retrospective survey involves a chart study of type 1 diabetic children aged 12-18 years. The frequency of retinopathy, nephropathy (albuminuria), diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hypoglycemia were determined among the children on 4 insulin injections per day and those on 2 injections per day. The 2 groups were matched for age, sex, body mass index, insulin dosages and glycosylated hemoglobin levels. RESULTS: The frequencies of DKA (25% versus 30%) and hypoglycemia (25% versus 30%) were comparatively less among the intensive therapy group compared with the conventional therapy group. The incidence of retinopathy was approximately the same (8% versus 7%) in the 2 groups and nephropathy did not feature in any patient in the series. CONCLUSION: Intensive insulin therapy appears safe and advantageous over conventional regimen in the age bracket 12-18 years as has already been proven for individuals above the age of 18 years and adults. It can be recommended for this age group to forestall the morbidity of childhood diabetes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".