Self-monitoring of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes: Results of the 2011 Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For insulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) may be vital in adjusting insulin dosages. For patients who do not use insulin, evidence supporting the use of SMBG is inconclusive. METHODS: The prevalence, frequency and correlates of SMBG are examined. Data pertain to 2,682 individuals aged 20 or older with T2DM who responded to the 2011 Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada. Multivariate prevalence rate ratios for associations between respondents' characteristics and their use of SMBG were derived using binomial regression models. RESULTS: A large majority of the study population (87.8%) reported SMBG. No difference in the prevalence of SMBG was observed between oral medication users compared with insulin users; however, the frequency of SMBG was lower for those taking oral medication only. Significant determinants of SMBG were a health professional's recommendation, having insurance coverage, and receiving an A1C test from a health professional. INTERPRETATION: The use of SMBG by adults with T2DM is common, and does not differ between those taking oral medication only and those treated with insulin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".