MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335084170 · doi:10.1177/0145721714560589

Experience With the Enlite Sensor in a Multicenter Pediatric Study

2014· article· en· W2335084170 on OpenAlexaff
Keira Evans, Christine Richardson, Alanna Landry, Janice Muileboom, Lynne Cormack, Margaret L. Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Diabetes Educator · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMarkham Stouffville HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster Children's HospitalHospital for Sick ChildrenHealth Sciences CentreChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation United States of America
KeywordsGlycemicContinuous glucose monitoringMedicineCertificationDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesControl (management)Insulin deliveryInsulinSelf-monitoringDosingMedical educationComputer sciencePsychologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to outline the experience of certified diabetes educators (CDEs) using the Enlite continuous glucose monitoring sensor system in a pediatric multicenter randomized controlled trial. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is becoming popular as a tool for educators and families to improve glycemic control. CGM can be a valuable educational tool to demonstrate to the user the impact of insulin dosing and effects of physical activity, food intake, and other life events such as work, illness, and stress on their glycemic control. The authors will share education tips and practical applications for diabetes educators to facilitate education and sustained use of Enlite glucose sensors in children and adolescents using insulin pump therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The Enlite glucose sensor is a comfortable and user-friendly device. Improvements to both the insertion device and the Enlite glucose sensor have resulted in improved level of comfort on insertion and with ongoing wear, which may translate into greater adherence and effectiveness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Diabetes EducatorSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207