Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ENWEndNote BIBJabRef, Mendeley RISPapers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero AMA Dayal D, Rohilla L. Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?. Pediatric Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism. 2019;25(2):103-105. doi:10.5114/pedm.2019.85822. APA Dayal, D., & Rohilla, L. (2019). Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?. Pediatric Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism, 25(2), 103-105. https://doi.org/10.5114/pedm.2019.85822 Chicago Dayal, Devi, and Latika Rohilla. 2019. "Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?". Pediatric Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism 25 (2): 103-105. doi:10.5114/pedm.2019.85822. Harvard Dayal, D., and Rohilla, L. (2019). Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?. Pediatric Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism, 25(2), pp.103-105. https://doi.org/10.5114/pedm.2019.85822 MLA Dayal, Devi et al. "Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?." Pediatric Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism, vol. 25, no. 2, 2019, pp. 103-105. doi:10.5114/pedm.2019.85822. Vancouver Dayal D, Rohilla L. Real-world experience of using basal insulin analogues in children with type 1 diabetes: is twice-daily dosing of insulin detemir justified?. Pediatric Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism. 2019;25(2):103-105. doi:10.5114/pedm.2019.85822.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".