Levels of type 1 diabetes care in children and adolescents for countries at varying resource levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal care for children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes is well described in guidelines, such as those of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes. High-income countries can usually provide this, but the cost of this care is generally prohibitive for lower-income countries. Indeed, in most of these countries, very little care is provided by government health systems, resulting in high mortality, and high complications rates in those who do survive. As lower-income countries work toward establishing guidelines-based care, it is helpful to describe the levels of care that are potentially affordable, cost-effective, and result in substantially improved clinical outcomes. We have developed a levels of care concept with three tiers: "minimal care," "intermediate care," and "comprehensive (guidelines-based) care." Each tier contains levels, which describe insulin and blood glucose monitoring regimens, requirements for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) testing, complications screening, diabetes education, and multidisciplinary care. The literature provides various examples at each tier, including from countries where the life for a child and the changing diabetes in children programs have assisted local diabetes centres to introduce intermediate care. Intra-clinic mean HbA1c levels range from 12.0% to 14.0% (108-130 mmol/mol) for the most basic level of minimal care, 8.0% to 9.5% (64-80 mmol/mol) for intermediate care, and 6.9% to 8.5% (52-69 mmol/mol) for comprehensive care. Countries with sufficient resources should provide comprehensive care, working to ensure that it is accessible by all in need, and that resulting HbA1c levels correspond with international recommendations. All other countries should provide Intermediate care, while working toward the provision of comprehensive care.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".