Daily self-monitoring unlikely to be cost-effective in adults with type 2 diabetes not using insulin in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Commentary on: 1. Cameron C, 2. Coyle D, 3. Ur E, 4. et al . Cost-effectiveness of self-monitoring of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus managed without insulin. CMAJ 2010;182:28–34. [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Although there is little doubt that self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) improves glycaemic outcomes in insulin-requiring diabetic patients, its use in non-insulin-treated patients is controversial. Observational studies cannot address this controversy because of either patient self-selection (people with healthier lifestyles are more likely to test) or physician self-selection (patients who are more out of control being asked to test). Only randomised control trials can provide the answer. Cameron and colleagues evaluated the cost-effectiveness of SMBG in non-insulin-treated patients by analysing seven randomised control trials using the validated UK Prospective Diabetes Study Outcomes Model, drug costs from the Ontario Public Drug Program, and resource use and costs from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. They assumed 1.29 strips per day, at $0.73 per strip. They found a significant beneficial difference in the pooled HbA1c results of 0.25% for SMBG. However, of the … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCMAJ%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1503%252Fcmaj.090765%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20026626%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmaj&resid=182/1/28&atom=%2Febmed%2F15%2F3%2F75.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".