Dietary Patterns of Insulin Pump and Multiple Daily Injection Users During Type 1 Diabetes Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Insulin pump therapy offers theoretical advantages over multiple daily injections (MDI) for fine-tuning insulin dose adjustment. However, evidence regarding the effectiveness of pump compared with MDI on glycemic control during pregnancy is conflicting. The Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Women With Type 1 Diabetes in Pregnancy Trial (CONCEPTT) was a randomized trial of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) before and during pregnancy (1). A secondary analysis found that pregnant women using pumps had suboptimal midgestation glycemic control compared with women using MDI (2). CGM measures demonstrated comparable time in range (TIR) 63–140 mg/dL at 12 and 34 weeks but 5% lower TIR in pump users at 24 weeks (48% vs. 53%), meaning that pump users spent, on average, 1 h 15 min per day less time in the glucose target range. There are several potential explanations for this, including baseline differences in women using pump or MDI, differences in insulin dose adjustment, and differences in dietary intake. Women using pumps have more dietary flexibility with no additional injections required for snacks. Through the use of prospectively collected dietary data from U.K. and Irish CONCEPTT participants, our objective was to examine the dietary patterns of women using insulin pumps and MDI during pregnancy. Details of the main CONCEPTT, pump versus MDI, and diet studies were previously published (1–3). All U.K. participants ( n = 113) were invited to participate in the CONCEPTT diet …
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".