179-LB: Characteristics of Children with Medication-Induced Diabetes (MID): A Canadian Pediatric Surveillance Program (CPSP) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: There is limited data on MID in children. This study aimed to compare the demographic and clinical characteristics of 1) a historical MID cohort to a new cohort and 2) children with MID based on overweight/obese BMI (O-BMI) and normal weight BMI (N-BMI). Methods: National surveillance was conducted via the CPSP. Pediatric clinicians reported new cases (children <18 years old) of non-type 1 diabetes for 24-months (cohort 1: 2006-08, cohort 2: 2017-19). MID cases were classified by the presence of diabetes as defined by Diabetes Canada and exposure to a diabetogenic medication. Comparisons were made between the two cohorts and between MID patients with O-BMI (BMI ≥85th percentile for age and sex) and N-BMI (BMI <85th percentile for age and sex). Descriptive statistics and Fisher exact, chi-squared and t-tests were used where applicable. Results: There were 55 cases of MID in cohort 1 and 51 cases in cohort 2, with no significant differences between cohorts. Mean age (+/- SD) at presentation was 13.1 +/- 3.6 years and 13.3 +/- 3.5 years in cohort 1 and 2, respectively. Glucocorticoid therapy was documented in >95% of cases in both cohorts. In the combined cohorts there were 50 cases with N-BMI and 43 cases with O-BMI. There were no statistically significant differences in age, sex or ethnicity across BMI groups. Mean hemoglobin A1c (+/- SD) (n = 40) was 6.45% +/- 1.11% in the N-BMI group and 7.26% +/- 2.51% in the O-BMI group (p = 0.184). The O-BMI group were more likely to have a parent with type 2 diabetes (T2D) (p = 0.042) and acanthosis nigricans (p = 0.007) compared to the N-BMI group. Conclusions: The demographic and clinical features of children with MID have not changed over a 10-year period. The presence of acanthosis nigricans and/or a parent with T2D may be used to identify children who require more intensive glycemic monitoring when on a diabetogenic medication. Further studies are needed to better understand the evolution of MID and the risk it confers to developing T2D. Disclosure T.J. Patel: None. A. Ayub: None. M.A. Irvine: None. S. Hadjiyannakis: None. M. Henderson: None. M.A. Nour: None. T. Pinto: None. B. Wicklow: None. J. Hamilton: None. E. Sellers: None. S. Amed: None. Funding Diabetes Canada; Manitoba Institute for Child Health and Sick Kids Hospital; Public Health Agency of Canada (F18-02353)
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".