Pediatric data of the usefulness of estimated average glucose (eAG) in glycemic control and cardiovascular risk reduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Estimated Average Glucose (eAG) is assumed to provide patients a better understanding of their recent average blood sugar levels comparing to HbA1c, therefore better control their glycemic levels. However, since its inception, debates on its clinical utility have been over several years leading to an unpopular laboratory and clinical practice of adoption; and there is no evidence to support or against the usefulness of eAG in real world medical practice. Data set presented in this article is related to our research paper entitled “Usefulness of Estimated Average Glucose (eAG) in glycemic Control and Cardiovascular Risk Reduction”, available in Clinical Biochemistry [1]. In this article, we compared population lipid and glycemic controls in pediatric diabetic patients of the regional health authority (RHA) zone 1.1 in New Brunswick, Canada, before and after the eAG implementation in January 2010, and with other 7 zones that do not report the parameter. Data (7,355 HbA1c values and 2,062 LDL-c values) was extracted from all pediatric diabetic patients in the Provincial Diabetes Registry from 2008 to 2014. The proportions of patients achieving therapeutic targets (HbA1c<53 mmol/mol (7.0%) and LDL-c<2.6 mmol/L) and the distributions of HbA1c and LDL-c values pre/post the eAG implementation in RHA Zone 1.1 were assessed. Additionally, to investigate whether the glycemic and cholesterol control in pediatric diabetic patients in RHA Zone 1.1 after the implementation of eAG was better than in other zones, we also compared the medians and inter quartile ranges of HbA1c and LDL-c from different zones from 2010 to 2014.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".