MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022177713 · doi:10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.686

SUN-630 Insulin Pumps Versus Multiple Daily Injections in Type 1 Diabetic Pregnancies

2020· article· en· W3022177713 on OpenAlexaff
Isabella Albanese, Natasha Garfield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Endocrine Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGestational Diabetes Research and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicNeonatal hypoglycemiaPregnancyHypoglycemiaBirth weightObstetricsType 1 diabetesInsulinInsulin pumpGestational agePediatricsDiabetes mellitusRespiratory distressGestationGestational diabetesInternal medicineEndocrinologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Pregnancy is associated with physiological increased resistance to insulin, leading to increased insulin requirements for diabetic women. Poor glycemic control in pregnancy is associated with neonatal and maternal complications. Insulin has been traditionally administered subcutaneously through multi daily injections (MDIs) however, use of insulin pumps or continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) has become more widespread. As glycemic control has direct influence on perinatal and maternal outcomes, comparing MDIs and CSII in pregnant women with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (DM1) is of interest. Aim: To investigate whether there is a difference in birth weights in infants born from DM1 mothers who use CSII compared to MDIs. Methods and Results: This is a retrospective cohort study of women diagnosed with DM1 on either MDIs or CSII whose pregnancies were followed at our institution. The following data was collected on chart review: age, years since DM1 diagnosis, BMI and weight gain at each trimester, total daily insulin dose at delivery, presence of retinopathy or nephropathy, gestational age at delivery, delivery method, presence of hypertension, pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, birth weight, sex of infant and neonatal complications. Preliminary analysis of our currently available data demonstrates that in age-matched groups of women on MDI (N=44) compared to CSII (N=8), there was no significant difference in infant birth weights (3491g ± 760 vs. 3554g ± 666, respectively). There was also no significant difference in neonatal complications (jaundice, hypoglycemia, shoulder dystocia, macrosomia, respiratory distress or prematurity). Women on CSII had been diagnosed with DMI for a significantly longer period of time (20 vs. 14 years) and were on higher total daily doses of insulin per body weight at time of delivery (p<0.05). Despite this, there was no significant difference in weight gain during pregnancy between the groups. There was also no significant difference in the presence of hypertension, pre-eclampsia, eclampsia or in C-section rates. Discussion: Given the paucity of studies and the increasing use of pump technology among diabetic women, there remains a need for further research comparing the effects of MDIs and pumps on birthweights as well as other neonatal and maternal outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Endocrine SocietySame topicGestational Diabetes Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207