MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3047265234

Diabetes 2018: Analysis of Hypoglycemic Episodes in Diabetics in Africans Using Ademolus Classification of Hypoglycemia (ACH) : Adegbenga B Ademolu - Lagos State University Teaching Hospital

2020· article· en· W3047265234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adegbenga B Ademolu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetic Complications & Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoglycemiaMedicineDiabetes mellitusGlycemicPediatricsIntensive care medicineType 2 Diabetes MellitusEndocrinology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypoglycemia as a management complication of diabetes mellitus is a world wide experience .Though concerted efforts have been made by endocrinologist, health workers and patients to reduce hypoglycemic episodes yet its occurrence and recurrence despite these efforts cannot be overemphasised. The glycemic thresholds for symptoms of hypoglycemia (among other responses) shift to lower plasma glucose concentrations after recent antecedent hypoglycemia  and to higher plasma glucose concentrations in patients with poorly controlled diabetes and infrequent hypoglycemia . Hypoglycemia in people living with diabetes mellitus in Africa is an uncharted territory in literature. To add to the existing knowledge in this area in Africa therefore, a number of questions will be addressed using Ademolus Classification of Hypoglycemia (ACH)Evaluation 1 has dominatingly adrenergic highlights, grade 2 has adrenergic highlights with neuroglycopenic include cover, grade 3 has prevalently neuroglycopenic highlights that are significantly reversible while grade 4 has overwhelmingly neuroglycopenic highlights with significantly irreversible cerebrum harm. Hypoglycemia as an administration intricacy of diabetes mellitus (DM) is an overall encounter. In Africa, hypoglycemia is an unknown domain in writing. In this manner, the accompanying inquiries will be tended to utilizing Ademolus Classification of Hypoglycemia (ACH). Which is the commonest and the least regular evaluation of hypoglycemia in DM African patients? Which evaluation of hypoglycemia is seen ordinarily in type 1 and in type 2 diabetics? Strategies: This is a review study that investigations 203 recorded hypoglycemic scenes in Africans with DM more than 9 years time frame. Utilizing a poll on 50 case documents contemplated. Hypoglycemia was characterized as a glucose of 70 mg/dl or less Results: It ought to be noticed that the examination is that of 203 recorded hypoglycemic scenes in 50 diabetics. The male to female proportion was 1:1.43 of the diabetics had type ll while 7 had type l DM. The age scope of the patients concentrated over the nine years 3 months time spans was 18 to 95 years, the age range among those with type l was 18-56years,while among the type ll it was 38-95years. The type 2 diabetics involved in this study had a total of 167 documented episodes of hypoglycemia while those with type l had 36 documented episodes. ln all these Africans, the average documented hypoglycemic episodes per patient was 4 episodes. Among the type 2 patients, the average hypoglycemic episodes is equally approximately 4 episodes per diabetics, while among the type l the average hypoglycaemic episodes are 5 per diabetic. The lowest documented hypoglycemia amongst type l diabetics in this study was 21mg/dl (grade 3 hypoglycemia) which was a nocturnal hypoglycemia that occurred at 1:00am while the lowest documented hypoglycemia amongst type 2 was 20mg/dl (grade 3 hypoglycemia) which was a fasting blood sugar documented at 6:00am.There was no record of grade 4 hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type2 diabetes mellitus patients in this African study. Now by using Ademolus Classification of Hypoglycemia to analyse the 203 hypoglycemic episodes,45.32% had grade 1 hypoglycemia,35.47% had grade 2 hypoglycemia while 19.21% had grade 3 hypoglycemia (Figure 1). With respect to the 167 episodes seen in type 2 diabetic, 48.50% had grade l hypoglycemia,35.93% had grade 2 hypoglycemia while 15.57% had grade 3 hypoglycemia (Figure 2).     A total of 127 hypoglycemic episodes were recorded in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients on insulin therapy alone. Of these 53.54% had grade 1 hypoglycemia, 31.50% had grade 2 hypoglycemia while 14.96% had grade 3 hypoglycemia (Figure 3).   The type 2 diabetics on both insulin and glucose lowering agents had 39 episodes of hypoglycemia recorded out of which 33.33% had grade 1 hypoglycemia,48.72% had grade 2 hypoglycemia while 17.95% had grade 3 hypoglycemia (Figure 4). Type 2 diabetics on glucose lowering agents alone could not be characterised by percentages of grade present as only one diabetic with one episode of hypoglycemia (grade 3) was involved in the study   The patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus had 36 hypoglycemic episodes, 30.50% of these were grade 1, 33.33% were grade 2 while 36.11% were grade 3 hypoglycemia (Figure 5).     There was no episode of grade 4 hypoglycemia in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus Africans patients involved in this study. By using the ADA/EASD 2018 classification of hypoglycemia, only 197 episodes of hypoglycemia met the classification definition of hypoglycemia as 6 episodes had 70mg/dl and did not qualified for hypoglycemia as defined by the ADA/EASD 2018 Classification of hypoglycemia as Analytically using ADA/EASD classification to analyse all the 197 hypoglycemic episodes studied, 77 (39.09%) hypoglycemic episodes had level 1 hypoglycemia, 90 (45.69%) had level 2 hypoglycemia while 30 (15.22%) had level 3 hypoglycemia. Conclusions: Grade 4 hypoglycemia was not recorded in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus in this African study. The commonest grade of hypoglycemia is grade 1 in type 2 and grade 3 in type 1 diabetics. The least common grade in type 2 diabetes is grade 3 while in type 1 it is grade 1. A similar study is recommended in Americans, Europeans, Asians and all ethnic groups for possibly racial differences or disparity in the findings of this research. This work is partly presented at 2nd International Conference on Diabetes and Diabetic Nursing Care September during 28-29, 2018 at Montreal, Quebec, Canada

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetic Complications & Medicine→Same topicDiabetes Management and Research→French-language works237,207→