MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123438783 · doi:10.1136/adc.2004.052035

Pubertal stage and hypoglycaemia counterregulation in type 1 diabetes

2005· article· en· W2123438783 on OpenAlexfundno aff
L. A. Ross

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Disease in Childhood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyGlucagonHypoglycemiaType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusInsulinHormoneType 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: To compare physiological and autonomic responses to acute hypoglycaemia in diabetic children in pre-, mid-, and post-pubertal stages of development. METHODS: Twenty seven children (8 pre-pubertal, 7 mid-pubertal, 12 post-pubertal) with type 1 diabetes were studied. Hypoglycaemia was induced by insulin infusion until an autonomic reaction (R) was identified. Counterregulatory hormone levels were measured at baseline, R, R+15, and R+30 minutes. Haemodynamic changes and sweat production were measured. RESULTS: The mean blood glucose level at R was lower in pre-pubertal than mid-pubertal children (2.0 v 2.5 mmol/l), and was positively correlated with HbA1c. Glucagon and noradrenaline responses to hypoglycaemia were minimal in all children. A brisk increase in pancreatic polypeptide (PP) concentration only occurred in post-pubertal children. Only two children showed a sweating response to hypoglycaemia. CONCLUSIONS: The blood glucose level at which sympatho-adrenal responses to hypoglycaemia were activated was associated with glycaemic control, and varied with pubertal stage. As in adults, the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia was deficient within a few years of developing diabetes. However, sweating and secretion of PP in response to hypoglycaemia did not occur until after puberty, indicating some qualitative differences from adults.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Disease in ChildhoodSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207