MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Pregnant Women With Type 1 Diabetes (CONCEPTT): A Multicenter International Randomised Controlled Trial

2018· article· en· W2800538169 on OpenAlexaff
Denice S. Feig, Lois Donovan, Kellie E. Murphy, Stephanie A. Amiel, Katharine F. Hunt, Elizabeth Asztalos, Jon Barrett, Johanna Sanchez, Alberto de Leiva, Moshe Hod, Lois Jovanovič, Ruth McManus, Eileen K. Hutton, Claire L. Meek, Zoe A. Stewart, Tim Wysocki, Robert O’Brien, Katrina J. Ruedy, Craig Kollman, George Tomlinson, Helen Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueObstetrical & Gynecological Survey · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicGlycated hemoglobinPregnancyGestationObstetricsType 2 diabetesGestational diabetesHypoglycemiaType 1 diabetesInsulinNeonatal hypoglycemiaDiabetes mellitusRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Abstracted from Lancet 2017;390:2347–2359) It is established that optimal maternal glycemic control throughout pregnancy is associated with a decrease in adverse fetal outcomes. A proper glycemic index can be difficult to control in women with type 1 diabetes during pregnancy because of the complexity of insulin dose adjustment, gestational changes in insulin sensitivity, and day-to-day changes to insulin absorption in late pregnancy. Nationwide UK data show the rates of severe hypoglycemia, particularly in early pregnancy, are 5 times higher among pregnant women than nonpregnant and that only 40% of women with type 1 diabetes achieve target glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ) after 24 weeks of gestation. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) provides real-time quantitative information on the direction and rate of change of glucose levels.

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)0.025
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueObstetrical & Gynecological SurveySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207