MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891017674 · doi:10.1155/2018/5094569

Teens with Type 1 Diabetes: How Does Their Nutrition Measure Up?

2018· article· en· W2891017674 on OpenAlexaff
Eleanor R. Mackey, Lyndsay O’Brecht, Clarissa S. Holmes, Marni Jacobs, Randi Streisand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Type 2 diabetesType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusMedicineComputer scienceEndocrinologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the intake of macronutrient and fiber in adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and examine their association with health indicators. METHODS: = 257, mean age 12 ± 1.2 years, 49.4% girls) reported dietary intake via two separate 24-hour recall interviews during a two-week period. Demographic and medical variables were abstracted from questionnaires and medical charts. RESULTS: Controlling for demographic and diet variables, a higher percentage of daily energy intake from fats was associated with poorer HbA1c. In contrast, an association between higher percent of energy intake from proteins and carbohydrates was found with higher systolic and diastolic BP, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Many early adolescents with T1D did not meet diabetes nutritional guidelines. Lower adherence to nutritional guidelines, specifically more than recommended energy intake from fats, was associated with poorer HbA1c. Addressing nutritional guidelines and increasing adherence as part of treatment may improve health outcomes for youth with T1D.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 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

Citations37
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes ResearchSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207