Prevalence of Insulin Pump Therapy and Its Association with Measures of Glycemic Control: Results from the Canadian Study of Longevity in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine cross-sectional insulin pump prevalence and factors associated with measures of glycemic control as a secondary analysis in a long-standing type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) national cohort. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Canadian participants with ≥50 years of T1DM (n = 305) were administered a comprehensive mail-based questionnaire including acquisition of contemporaneous laboratory results. Factors associated with pump use, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c), and hypoglycemia were analyzed by regression. RESULTS: The 305 participants had a median age of 65 [interquartile range, 59, 71] years, median diabetes duration of 54 [51, 59] years, and mean HbA1c level of 7.5 ± 1.1%. Prevalence of pump use was 44% (133/305), with median duration of use 8 [4, 13] years. Compared with the non-pump subgroup, the pump subgroup had numerically lower but similar HbA1c levels (7.4 ± 0.9% vs. 7.6 ± 1.2%; P = 0.22) and reported greater numbers of minor hypoglycemia events (6.5 vs. 5.1 events/patient·month; P = 0.004) and fewer severe hypoglycemia events (0.5 vs. 1.3 events/patient·year; P = 0.02) in the past year. More frequent daily glucose tests and more frequent minor hypoglycemia events-but not pump therapy or its prescription parameters-were independently associated with lower HbA1c level in multivariable regression. However, use of insulin pump and habitual use of continuous glucose monitoring (≥1 week/month) were each independently associated with lower risk of severe hypoglycemia (risk ratio = 0.50 [P < 0.0001] and 0.30 [P = 0.001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Insulin pump and continuous glucose monitoring technologies were associated with lower risk of severe hypoglycemia, while frequent daily glucose testing was associated with lower HbA1c level. These findings imply that basic self-management skill and technology play complementary roles in glycemic control among older adults with long-standing T1DM.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".