Carbohydrate knowledge in diabetic emergency department patients at an academic institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diabetes Mellitus (DM) affects 12.3% of the U.S. population and is responsible for $245 billion in annual costs. Knowledge about their disease is an important part of patients’ self-management.Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the baseline level of knowledge of patients with diabetes in this emergency department (ED), including behaviors related to healthy eating such as carbohydrate counting (CC).Methods: This was a cross sectional interview survey conducted at an academic tertiary center. An 8-item survey was developed to assess areas of diabetes self-care and carbohydrate knowledge. Trained research assistants approached all medically stable, non-pregnant ED patients with a past medical history of diabetes for participation. Descriptive statistics and ANOVA analysis were used.Results: Of the 115 patients approached, 98 were willing to participate; 54% were using insulin and 68% were female. The average age was 55 (SD +/- 14) years and diagnosed for an average of 12 (SD +/- 10) years. Fifty three percent did not check their morning blood sugar. Only 20% could accurately state the target hemoglobin A1c. While 48% of participants could relate the importance of carbohydrates to blood sugar, only 5% could state the number of grams of carbohydrates in a slice of bread. Only 1 participant correctly answered all 4 of the carbohydrate questions. Higher education and more visits with a nutritionist were associated with carbohydrate knowledge.Conclusions: Carbohydrate knowledge among this ED population was poor. Opportunities exist for patient education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".