MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Introduction

2009· article· en· W2410777433 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ragnar Hanås, Kim C. Donaghue, Georgeanna J. Klingensmith, Peter G.F. Swift

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Diabetes · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This supplement of Pediatric Diabetes is the compendium of guidelines chapters published 2006–2008 as individual articles in Pediatric Diabetes, which are available on ISPAD's website www.ispad.org. The guidelines have been modified and updated to reflect major new evidence published since they were published previously. In 2007, the total child population of the world (0–14 years) was estimated to be 1.8 billion, of whom 0.02% have diabetes. This means that approximately 440,000 children around the world have diabetes with 70,000 new cases diagnosed each year 1. However, field data would suggest that some individual country estimates (especially in Africa) are over-estimated. This very large number of children need help to survive with injections of insulin to live a full life without restrictions or disabling complications and without being stigmatized for their diabetes. Even today, almost a century after the discovery of insulin, the most common cause of death in a child with diabetes from a global perspective is lack of access to insulin 2. Many children die before their diabetes is diagnosed. It is therefore of utmost importance that all forces unite to make it come true that no child should die from diabetes. A promising initiative has been taken by IDF/Life for a Child (www.lifeforachild.org) in collaboration with ISPAD and other organizations (Access to Essential Diabetes Medicines for Children in the Developing World). Several major companies that produce insulin and other diabetes supplies have pledged their support, and the numbers of children provided with insulin will according to plan increase to approximately 12,000 in 2010 and 30,000 by 2015. ISPAD has pledged structural support and assistance in the training of paediatricians and healthcare professionals in childhood and adolescent diabetes through its membership network. In 1993, members of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) formulated the Declaration of Kos, proclaiming their commitment to “promote optimal health, social welfare and quality of life for all children with diabetes around the world by the year 2000.” Although all the aims and ideals of the Declaration of Kos had not been reached by 2000, we feel that slowly, by small steps, the worldwide care of children is improving. ISPAD published its first set of guidelines in 1995 3 and its second in 2000 4. Since then, the acceptance of intensive therapy, also for very young children, has increased around the world. Insulin pump usage has risen in all age groups in countries where this treatment modality can be afforded. Intensive therapy requires better and more comprehensive education for it to be successful. The ISPAD Consensus Guidelines 2000 has been translated into 11 languages, indicating the need for a truly international document. In 2003–2005, national guidelines for childhood diabetes have been released: the Australian Clinical Practice Guidelines from the National Health and Medical Research Council, (Writing Committee Chair, Martin Silink) 5; in the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) Clinical Guideline (Group Leader Stephen Greene) 6. Both these publications are truly evidence-based in that they deal with the body of evidence with a systematic approach, grading each reference and building the case for each recommendation. In 2003 the Canadian Diabetes Association published Clinical Practice Guidelines with chapters both on type 1 and type 2 in children and adolescents 7. In 2005, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published their statement on the care of children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes 8. This updated third edition of ISPAD's Consensus Guidelines, now Clinical Practice Consensus Guidelines is much larger, and has been enriched by the above mentioned national guidelines. In the Introduction to the 2000 ISPAD Guidelines the acknowledged intention was for the next guidelines to be referenced. We have used the ADA grading system for grading evidences 9. Whenever possible, the reference for a statement or recommendation has been included, but as the reader will see, a vast majority of the recommendations and suggestions do have the grade E (Expert consensus or clinical experience). The updated 2009 guidelines are based on a wide consensus of clinical practice. They were drafted by international writing teams, modified by experts in different specialties from many countries, debated at the annual ISPAD meetings in 2005–2008 by the members, and were reviewed by members via the Internet and the ISPAD website. As far as possible, significant input by individuals has been acknowledged. Many thanks to the large number of individuals who have contributed but whose names could not be included. The American Diabetes Association evidence grading system for clinical practice recommendations is as follows: As the 2000 Guidelines, the 2006–2008 Guidelines and the 2009 Compendium places education at the center of clinical management. Education is the vehicle for optimal self-management, the key to success. New chapters have been added on type 2 diabetes in children and adolescents, monogenic diabetes, exercise and cystic fibrosis related diabetes. We hope therefore that the guidelines will be widely consulted and will be used to: improve awareness among governments, state health care providers and the general public of the serious long-term implications of poorly managed diabetes and of the essential resources needed for optimal care assist individual care givers in managing children and adolescents with diabetes in a prompt, safe, consistent, equitable, standardized manner in accordance with the current views of experts in the field. As in 2000, “these guidelines are not strict protocols nor are they the final word”. Individual clinical judgment and decision making also require the family's values and expectations to be considered with the best outcomes being reached by consensus. Conflicts of interest: the editors have declared no conflicts of interest. Ragnar Hanas a Kim C. Donaghue a Georgeanna Klingensmith a Peter G.F. Swift a

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4820.310

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.250 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations57
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric DiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207