Lessons Learned From a Pilot RCT of Simultaneous Versus Delayed Initiation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Children and Adolescents With Type 1 Diabetes Starting Insulin Pump Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncertainty remains about effectiveness of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in pediatric type 1 diabetes (T1D). Success with CGM is related to CGM adherence, which may relate to readiness to make the behavior changes required for effective use. We hypothesize that readiness for change will be greater at initiation of insulin pump therapy than in established pump users, and that this will predict CGM adherence. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in children with established T1D comparing simultaneous pump and CGM initiation to standard pump therapy with delayed CGM initiation. We randomized participants to simultaneous pump and CGM initiation or to standard pump therapy with the option of adding CGM 4 months later. CGM adherence was tracked via web-based download and readiness for change assessed with the SOCRATES questionnaire. Of 41 eligible children, 20 agreed to participate; 15 subjects completed the study (7 males; baseline age 11.8 ± 4.0 years; T1D duration 2.7 ± 2.7 years; mean A1C 8.2 ± 0.8%). Six of 8 simultaneous group subjects used CGM > 60% of the time for 4 months compared to 1 of 7 delayed group subjects (P = .02). Using SOCRATES, we could assign 87-100% of subjects to a single motivation stage at baseline and 4 months. This pilot study demonstrates the feasibility of randomizing pump naïve children and adolescents with established T1D to simultaneous pump and CGM initiation versus standard pump therapy with delayed CGM initiation. Lessons from this pilot study were used to inform development of a full-scale multicenter RCT.
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 | 0.096 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".