MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing insulin delivery: assessment of three strategies in intensive diabetes management

2000· article· en· W2143906026 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Kalergis, Danièle Pacaud, Irène Strychar, S. J. Meltzer, Peter J.H. Jones, Jean-Françis Yale

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Obesity and Metabolism · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Victoria Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsulinDietary managementMealMedicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesMetabolic control analysisBasal insulinEndocrinologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare three intensive management strategies with respect to metabolic control (glycated haemoglobin, preprandial blood glucose, lipid profile, body weight, hypoglycaemic episodes) and psycho-social adaptation (quality of life, self-efficacy, stress and perceived complexity). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifteen adults with type 1 diabetes completed this 1-year, randomized, prospective, cross-over study. The three treatment strategies were categorized according to flexibility with insulin self-adjustments as follows: Simplified (SIMP) = meal plan based on food exchanges with no self-adjustments of insulin for food, exercise and stress; Qualitative (QUAL) = meal plan based on food exchanges with qualitative adjustment of insulin for food, exercise and stress; Quantitative (QUANT) = meal plan using carbohydrate counting with quantitative adjustment of insulin for food and qualitative adjustment for exercise and stress. All three strategies allowed for adjustments of insulin for preprandial blood glucose and the option of adjusting diet for exercise. All subjects followed each strategy for 3.5 months. Subjects kept detailed log sheets where they recorded preprandial blood glucose, insulin dosages, food intake, activity and stress level at least four times/day. The psycho-social aspects were determined with validated questionnaires that were completed before and after each strategy. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in metabolic control, quality of life and self-efficacy between the three strategies. The mean (+/- s.e.) for HbA1 levels (normal < 8.5%) were: Baseline: 10.9+/-0.06 and End of SIMP = 9.7+/-0.03; QUAL = 9.5+/-0.04; QUANT = 10.2+/-0.04. Body weight and serum lipid levels did not change significantly. The frequency of severe hypoglycaemic episodes for the entire study was 20 episodes/100 patient-years. Perceived complexity of treatment strategy increased (p < 0.0001) from SIMP to QUANT (least to most flexible). Although the majority of subjects (n = 11) were following a strategy similar to SIMP prior to entering the study, 12 subjects chose to continue with QUAL, three with QUANT and none with SIMP at the end of the study. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that a strategy that allows for flexibility of self-adjustments of insulin and is not very complex (such as QUAL) may be the strategy of choice for intensive management programmes.

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)0.001
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 score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.854

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations40
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Obesity and MetabolismSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207