Evaluation of the efficiency of using glucose monitoring devices upon unsatisfactory diabetes compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale. The key purpose of modern glucose meters is to ensure regular self-monitoring of glucose level when receiving outpatient management, provided that fair diabetes compensation is achieved. Although glucose meters are not intended for assessing the glucose level in severe metabolic disorders (ketosis, ketoacidosis), since these conditions have a negative effect on device accuracy, in actual life a patient (or a physician) can face a situation when a glucose meter is the only tool for evaluating carbohydrate metabolism disorders. Objective. To evaluate clinical accuracy of Satellite Express PKG-03 glucose meter in measuring the glucose level in patients with type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) receiving insulin therapy when the disease course is complicated by ketosis or ketoacidosis. Material and methods. Capillary blood was simultaneously collected in two groups of patients receiving insulin therapy from the same drop to evaluate the glucose blood level using the Satellite Express glucose meter and a SUPER GL laboratory analyzer of glucose and lactate levels. Acid-base imbalance was the key criterion for distributing patients into groups: no disorders were detected in group 1 patients, while group 2 patients had ketosis or ketoacidosis. The results were evaluated using the Clarke error grid. Results. Comparative analysis of blood samples collected from 77 patients showed that all deviations in glucose level indices measured using the Satellite Express glucose meter from the reference values belonged to zones A (the clinically valid values) and B (safe deviations) in patients without acid-base imbalance. In patients hospitalized for ketosis and ketoacidosis (group 2), the deviations from the reference values lay in zones A and B in 97%, while lying on the boundary between zones B and C only in 3%.
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 | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".