1402-P: Impact of Diabetes Duration on Functional and Clinical Status in Older Adults with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) are aging more successfully than ever. However, in this older, heterogeneous population, diabetes duration can vary widely, as people may have been diagnosed many decades ago in early childhood or as recently as late adulthood. There is little information about the impact of diabetes duration on psychosocial factors and functional status as patients with T1D age. Methods: We evaluated a cohort of older adults (age≥65 years) with T1D. All participants completed surveys regarding demographics, medical history, overall health (Short Form 36; SF-36), hypoglycemia awareness (Clarke Score), and hypoglycemia fear (HFSII). Laboratory A1C was measured, and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was performed to assess cognitive function. Results: We evaluated 148 older adults, mean age 71 ± 5 years, 55% female, 97% white, mean A1C 7.4 ± 0.9%, mean diabetes duration 39 ± 17 years, with 20% of participants living alone. The participants were divided into tertiles of diabetes duration; ≤30 years (n=48), 31-49 years (n=54) years, and ≥50 years (n=46). Comparison of the shortest and longest tertiles of diabetes duration showed that participants of the group with the shortest duration had significantly less depression (35% vs. 59%; p=0.02), less hypoglycemia unawareness (31% vs. 61%; p=0.008), fewer recent falls in the prior 6 months (5 vs. 12; p=0.05), fewer daily medications (9 vs. 11; p=0.02), and fewer comorbidities (8 vs. 9; p=0.05). Additionally, the overall health survey (SF-36) showed that the group with longer duration reported more difficulty and limitation in daily activities due to physical health. The two groups did not differ in age, A1C, cognitive dysfunction (MoCA score <26), or hypoglycemia fear. Conclusion: In older adults with T1D, duration of diabetes impacts clinical and functional status, and should be kept in consideration when developing management strategies for maximum safety and success. Disclosure M. Munshi: Consultant; Self; Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. C. Slyne: None. K. Sifre: None. R. O’Donnell: None. A. Atakov-Castillo: None. E. Toschi: None. Funding National Institutes of Health (1DP3DK112214-01)
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".