Increases in Whole Blood Glucose Measurements Using Optically Based Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Analyzers Due to Extreme Canadian Winters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Temperature and humidity have been reported to influence the results of whole blood glucose (WBG) measurements. METHODS: To determine whether patient WBG values were affected by seasonal variation, we conducted a retrospective analysis of 3 years' worth of weekly averages of patient WBG in five Edmonton hospitals. RESULTS: In all five hospitals, the winter WBG averages were consistently higher than the summer WBG averages, with the differences varying between 5% and 9%. Whole blood glucose averages were negatively correlated with the outside temperature. This seasonal variation was not observed in weekly patient averages of specimens run in a central hospital laboratory. INTERPRETATION: It is probable that the seasonal variation of WBG arises from the very low indoor humidities that are associated with external subzero temperatures. These increases in WBG in cold weather may be due to limitations in the WBG measuring systems when operated in decreased humidities and/or increased evaporation of the blood sample during the blood glucose measurement process. The implications of this seasonal variation are significant in that it (1) introduces increased variability in patient WBG, (2) may result in increased glucose-lowering therapy during periods of external cold and low indoor humidity, and (3) confounds evaluations of WBG meter technology in geographic regions of subzero temperature and low indoor humidity. To mitigate the risk of diagnosing and treating factitious hyperglycemia, the humidity of patient care areas must be strictly controlled.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".