Persistent Differences Among Centers Over 3 Years in Glycemic Control and Hypoglycemia in a Study of 3,805 Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes From the Hvidøre Study Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Twenty-one international pediatric diabetes centers from 17 countries investigated the effect of simple feedback about the grand mean HbA(1c) level of all centers and the average value of each center on changes in metabolic control, rate of severe hypoglycemia, and insulin therapy over a 3-year period. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinical data collection and determination of HbA(1c) levels were conducted at a central location in 1995 (n = 2,780, age 0-18 years) and 1998 (n = 2,101, age 11-18 years). RESULTS: Striking differences in average HbA(1c) concentrations were found among centers; these differences remained after adjustment for the significant confounders of sex, age, and diabetes duration. They were apparent even in patients with short diabetes duration and remained stable 3 years later (mean adjusted HbA(1c) level: 8.62 +/- 0.03 vs. 8.67 +/- 0.04 [1995 vs. 1998, respectively]). Three centers had improved significantly, four centers had deteriorated significantly in their overall adjusted HbA(1c) levels, and 14 centers had not changed in glycemic control. During the observation period, there were increases in the adjusted insulin dose by 0.076 U/kg, the adjusted number of injections by 0.23 injections per day, and the adjusted BMI by 0.95 kg/m(2). The 1995 versus 1998 difference in glycemic control for the seven centers could not be explained by prevailing insulin regimens or rates of hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: This study reveals significant outcome differences among large international pediatric diabetes centers. Feedback and comparison of HbA(1c) levels led to an intensification of insulin therapy in most centers, but improved glycemic control in only a few.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".