Insulin pump use compared with intravenous insulin during labour and delivery: the <scp>INSPIRED</scp> observational cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the safety and efficacy of pump therapy (continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion; CSII) during labour and delivery in women with Type 1 diabetes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 161 consecutive Type 1 diabetic pregnancies delivered during 2000-2010 at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada. Capillary blood glucose levels during labour and delivery and time in/out of target (target: 4-6 mmol/l) were compared along with neonatal outcomes for three groups: (1) women on pumps who stayed on pumps during labour (pump/pump n = 31), (2) women on pumps who switched to intravenous (IV) insulin infusion during labour (pump/IVn = 25), and (3) women on multiple daily injections who switched to IV insulin infusion during labour (MDIn = 105). RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the mean or median glucose values during labour and delivery across all three groups, and no significant difference in time spent hypoglycaemic. However, women in the pump/pump group had significantly better glycaemic control as defined by mean glucose (5.5 vs. 6.4 mmol/l; P = 0.01), median glucose (5.4 vs. 6.3 mmol/l; P = 0.02), and more time spent in target (60.9% vs. 39.2%; P = 0.06) compared with women in the pump/IV group (after removing one outlier). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the continuation of CSII therapy during labour and delivery appears safe and efficacious. Moreover, women who choose to continue CSII have better glucose control during delivery than those who switch to IV insulin, suggesting that it should be standard practice to allow women the option of continuing CSII during labour and delivery.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".