Ultrasound detection of insulin‐induced lipohypertrophy in Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To define standard criteria for the detection of lipohypertrophy using ultrasonography and to determine the accuracy of this method. METHOD: Individuals using insulin therapy for ≥2 years with unknown lipohypertrophy status were enrolled at a diabetes education centre. A team of diabetes educator nurses performed a clinical examination for evidence of lipohypertrophy and a separate team of ultrasonographers examined participants in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: The echo signature for lipohypertrophy consisted of location in the subcutaneous layer and lesions that were 1) well circumscribed either by hyperechoic foci with defined borders or a nodular shape with a hypoechoic halo, 2) heterogeneous in echotexture compared with surrounding tissue, 3) associated with distortion of surrounding connective tissue with 4) absence of vascularity and 5) absence of capsule. Ultrasonography identified individuals with lipohypertrophy significantly more frequently than inspection or palpation (P<0.0001). Inter-observer agreement was moderate (κ=0.50) and limited by the presence of subclinical lesions in 73% of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrasound detection of lipohypertrophy is consistent with clinical examination and is reproducible using a defined echo signature. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration no: NCT02348099).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".