MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035054434 · doi:10.2337/db20-268-or

268-OR: Conversations and Reactions around Severe Hypoglycemia (CRASH): Survey Responses of People Aged 65+ with T1DM or Insulin-Treated T2DM and Caregivers

2020· article· en· W3035054434 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Frank J. Snoek, Erik Spaepen, Donald M. Bushnell, Christopher J. Child, Zaneta Balantac, Beth Mitchell, Mark Peyrot

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoglycemiaMedicineType 1 diabetesInsulinPreparednessType 2 Diabetes MellitusPediatricsFamily medicineInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The CRASH online survey examined the experience and treatment of a severe hypoglycemic event (SHE) in people with T1DM or insulin-treated T2DM (PWD) or caregivers (CG). Eligible participants experienced ≥1 SHE in the last 3 years with insulin treatment at the time of event. Reported here are results from PWD aged ≥65 (T1DM 74, T2DM 104) and CG (T1DM 95, T2DM 231) from Canada, Germany, Spain, UK, and USA. During the last SHE, reported glucagon use was low for T1DM (9.5%) and T2DM (7.5%); primary reason reported was no prescription available or filled (T1DM 24.3%, T2DM 29.3%). Of those who ever discussed SHE at their healthcare provider (HCP) visit (T1DM 138, T2DM 243), less than half (T1DM 41.3%, T2DM 34.2%) reported discussion of SHE at every HCP visit. No discussion of the most recent SHE occurred for 34.3% (T1DM) and 31.0% (T2DM). During the most recent SHE many felt unprepared (T1DM 35.5%, T2DM 47.2%), scared (T1DM 60.9%, T2DM 64.2%), and helpless (T1DM 39.1%, T2DM 51.3%). After the last SHE, changes were reported to insulin regimens, meal plans, carrying sugar/sweets, checking blood glucose more often or using continuous glucose monitors, and increasing access to glucagon. Clinical guidelines recommending discussion of hypoglycemia at each HCP visit for PWD at risk for SHE are not being met and should occur, and CGs should be included in preparedness strategies. Disclosure F.J. Snoek: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk A/S, Roche Diabetes Care. Research Support; Self; Sanofi. E. Spaepen: None. D.M. Bushnell: None. C.J. Child: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Z. Balantac: Other Relationship; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. B. Mitchell: Employee; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Stock/Shareholder; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. M. Peyrot: Advisory Panel; Self; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; Self; CeQur Corporation, Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Spouse/Partner; Eli Lilly and Company. Funding Eli Lilly and Company

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 ResearchFrench-language works237,207