The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry: A Profile of the Demographics, Management, and Outcomes of Individuals with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Clinical guidelines now define the standard of diabetes care, but few health care jurisdictions systematically assess their practicality and impact. The Canadian LMC Diabetes Registry includes the electronic health records of >50 endocrinologists in three provinces and provides quarterly real-time outcome reports to each endocrinologist. This retrospective cohort study aimed to characterize the demographics, treatment regimens, and outcomes of the type 1 diabetes (T1D) patient population in the registry. Research Design and Methods: Adults were included if they had a clinical diagnosis of T1D, had seen an LMC endocrinologist between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2018, and had follow-up >6 months. This study is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04162067). Results: The resulting cohort included 3600 individuals with mean age of 43.9 ± 15.3 years and duration of diabetes of 21.5 ± 13.9 years. Mean hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) was 8.1% ± 1.5% and only 22.5% had achieved HbA1c ≤7.0%. In each measure, individuals in younger cohorts showed poorer glycemic control than older cohorts. Within each age cohort, insulin pump users showed a lower mean HbA1c than those using multiple daily injections, especially in cohorts who were also not using a continuous glucose monitor. Overall, 63.1% reported at least weekly hypoglycemia, whereas 3.6% reported severe hypoglycemia ≥1 per year. Conclusions: Despite receiving care in an advanced well-resourced environment, within a public health care system, from specialists armed with regular patient outcomes feedback, most individuals with T1D are unable to achieve the goals recommended by clinical practice guidelines.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".