Response to Comment on Feig et al. Pumps or Multiple Daily Injections in Pregnancy Involving Type 1 Diabetes: A Prespecified Analysis of the CONCEPTT Randomized Trial. Diabetes Care 2018;41:2471–2479
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank Sacha and Lane (1) for their interest in our multicenter, multinational randomized Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial (CONCEPTT). First, we should clarify that the randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate the impact of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in women with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who were pregnant or planning pregnancy (2). Of note, CGM was beneficial on a range of maternal second and third trimester glycemic outcomes, with a halving in the odds ratio for neonatal large for gestational age, neonatal hypoglycemia, and neonatal intensive care unit admissions >24 h (3). Furthermore, the treatment effect of CGM was comparable across 31 international sites and between women using insulin pumps and contemporary multiple daily injection (MDI) regimens. Given the paucity of randomized trial data comparing insulin pumps with MDI using contemporary fast- and long-acting …
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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".