A case manager plus psychoeducation reduced adverse outcomes in youth with type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Svoren BM, Butler D, Levine B-S, et al . Reducing acute adverse outcomes in youths with type 1 diabetes: a randomized, controlled trial.Pediatrics 2003;112:914–22.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q In children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes, does a low intensity, non-medical intervention using a case manager to monitor and encourage routine diabetes care visits, with or without supplementation by psychoeducational modules, reduce acute adverse outcomes and improve glycaemic control? ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Allocation: {not concealed}.* ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Blinding: blinded {healthcare providers and data collectors}*. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Follow up period: 24 months. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Setting: diabetes centre in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Patients: 301 children and adolescents aged 7–16 years (mean age 12 y, 56% girls, mean duration of diabetes 5.2 y) who had had type 1 diabetes for >6 months. Inclusion criteria included ⩾1 outpatient medical visit in the previous year, no major psychiatric problems in the patient or parent, stable living environment, and intention for routine follow up at the study centre. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Interventions: low intensity, non-medical intervention using a … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.stitle%253DPediatrics%26rft.aulast%253DSvoren%26rft.auinit1%253DB.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D112%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D914%26rft.epage%253D922%26rft.atitle%253DReducing%2BAcute%2BAdverse%2BOutcomes%2Bin%2BYouths%2BWith%2BType%2B1%2BDiabetes%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%252C%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1542%252Fpeds.112.4.914%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14523186%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=pediatrics&resid=112/4/914&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F2%2F42.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".