MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2498002527 · doi:10.1186/s12884-016-0961-5

CONCEPTT: Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women with Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial: A multi-center, multi-national, randomized controlled trial - Study protocol

2016· article· en· W2498002527 on OpenAlexafffund
Denice S. Feig, Elizabeth Asztalos, Rosa Corcoy, Alberto de Leiva, Lois Donovan, Moshe Hod, Lois Jovanovič, Craig Kollman, Ruth McManus, Kellie E. Murphy, Katrina J. Ruedy, Johanna Sanchez, George Tomlinson, Helen Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of CalgarySunnybrook HospitalMount Sinai HospitalHealth Sciences CentreLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto General HospitalUniversity Health NetworkSt Joseph's Health CareUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of CambridgeNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchSunnybrook Research InstituteBreakthrough T1D CanadaCambridge University HospitalsFedDev OntarioJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation United States of America
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicPregnancyRandomized controlled trialRandomizationType 2 diabetesType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusObstetricsReproductive medicineGynecologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Women with type 1 diabetes strive for optimal glycemic control before and during pregnancy to avoid adverse obstetric and perinatal outcomes. For most women, optimal glycemic control is challenging to achieve and maintain. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (RT-CGM) will improve glycemic control in women with type 1 diabetes who are pregnant or planning pregnancy. METHODS/DESIGN: A multi-center, open label, randomized, controlled trial of women with type 1 diabetes who are either planning pregnancy with an HbA1c of 7.0 % to ≤10.0 % (53 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol) or are in early pregnancy (<13 weeks 6 days) with an HbA1c of 6.5 % to ≤10.0 % (48 to ≤ 86 mmol/mol). Participants will be randomized to either RT-CGM alongside conventional intermittent home glucose monitoring (HGM), or HGM alone. Eligible women will wear a CGM which does not display the glucose result for 6 days during the run-in phase. To be eligible for randomization, a minimum of 4 HGM measurements per day and a minimum of 96 hours total with 24 hours overnight (11 pm-7 am) of CGM glucose values are required. Those meeting these criteria are randomized to RT- CGM or HGM. A total of 324 women will be recruited (110 planning pregnancy, 214 pregnant). This takes into account 15 and 20 % attrition rates for the planning pregnancy and pregnant cohorts and will detect a clinically relevant 0.5 % difference between groups at 90 % power with 5 % significance. Randomization will stratify for type of insulin treatment (pump or multiple daily injections) and baseline HbA1c. Analyses will be performed according to intention to treat. The primary outcome is the change in glycemic control as measured by HbA1c from baseline to 24 weeks or conception in women planning pregnancy, and from baseline to 34 weeks gestation during pregnancy. Secondary outcomes include maternal hypoglycemia, CGM time in, above and below target (3.5-7.8 mmol/l), glucose variability measures, maternal and neonatal outcomes. DISCUSSION: This will be the first international multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of RT- CGM before and during pregnancy in women with type 1 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01788527 Registration Date: December 19, 2012.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.004

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations49
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Pregnancy and ChildbirthSame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207