Analysis of Use of an Automated Bolus Calculator Reduces Fear of Hypoglycemia and Improves Confidence in Dosage Accuracy in Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus Patients Treated with Multiple Daily Insulin Injections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue of Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, Barnard and colleagues evaluate the use of the ACCU-CHEK® Aviva Expert blood glucose meter/bolus advisor system in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Hypoglycemia is a major limiting factor to intensive glucose control, and fear of hypoglycemia, especially in those who have experienced severe reactions, is a major barrier. The bolus advisor improved overall glucose control and increased adherence by overcoming the patients' fear of hypoglycemia, giving them more confidence to give adequate doses of insulin to control hyperglycemia. In this review, we discuss other human factors that become barriers to intensive control, which can benefit from new technologies, including numeracy literacy, information overload, time required for diabetes self-care, and device incompatibility.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it