MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034198511 · doi:10.2337/db20-1629-p

1629-P: Association of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) Scores with Glycemic Target Achievement in Type 1 Diabetes (T1D) in the SAGE Study

2020· article· en· W3034198511 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emma G. Wilmot, Francisco Javier Ampudia‐Blasco, Lori Berard, Sandrine Brette, Luís Eduardo Calliari, Emily Fitts, Kelly L. Close, Juan José Gagliardino, Felipe Lauand, Anne L. Peters, Éric Renard, Aude Roborel de Climens, Jochen Seufert

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorryGlycemicPsychosocialMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Type 2 diabetesObservational studyFamily medicineDiabetes mellitusAnxietyPsychologyPsychiatryInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

T1D is a chronic disease affecting both physical and psychosocial health. SAGE was a multinational, cross-sectional observational study using data from medical records and interviews of people (N=3858) aged ≥26 years with T1D for ≥1 year. The association between the achievement of general (HbA1c <7 %) or individualized HbA1c targets and PRO scores was analyzed by multivariate logistic regression, adjusted for region and age group. The following PROs are reported: Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS-II) worry subscore, Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID), Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (ITSQ), Audit of Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL). Overall, 24.3% of people achieved the general HbA1c target; 20.9% achieved individualized targets (most common target, HbA1c 7 % to <7.5 %). Lower emotional distress (PAID score) and higher treatment satisfaction (all ITSQ scores except Lifestyle domain) were associated with achievement of general and individualized HbA1c targets (Table). Lower HFS-II worry score and higher ADDQoL total scores were associated with achievement of HbA1c general target, but neither was associated with achieving individualized HbA1c targets. In people with T1D, lower diabetes-related emotional distress and higher treatment satisfaction appear to be associated with achievement of both general and individualized HbA1c targets. Disclosure E.G. Wilmot: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Medtronic. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Abbott, Eli Lilly and Company, Insulet Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. F. Ampudia Blasco: None. L. Berard: Consultant; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Becton, Dickinson and Company, Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Montméd, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd. S. Brette: Other Relationship; Self; Sanofi. L.P. Calliari: Board Member; Self; Abbott, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk A/S, Sanofi. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Lilly Diabetes. E. Fitts: Other Relationship; Self; N/A. K.L. Close: Other Relationship; Self; Abbott, Air Liquide, American Diabetes Association, AstraZeneca, Dexcom, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., JDRF, Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, Lilly Diabetes, Merck & Co., Inc. J.J. Gagliardino: None. F. Lauand: Employee; Self; Sanofi. A.L. Peters: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Bigfoot Biomedical, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, MannKind Corporation, Medscape, Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi US. Consultant; Self; Livongo Health. Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., vTv Therapeutics. Other Relationship; Self; Livongo Health, Mellitus Health, Omada Health, Stability Healthcare, Whole Biome Inc. E. Renard: Board Member; Self; Abbott, Insulet Corporation, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care. Consultant; Self; Air Liquide, Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. Research Support; Self; Dexcom, Inc., Tandem Diabetes Care. A. Roborel de Climens: Employee; Self; Sanofi. J. Seufert: Research Support; Self; Sanofi. Speaker’s Bureau; Self; Sanofi.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207