MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092224625 · doi:10.1007/s00125-020-05263-9

Glucose management for exercise using continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) systems in type 1 diabetes: position statement of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) and of the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD) endorsed by JDRF and supported by the American Diabetes Association (ADA)

2020· article· en· W3092224625 on OpenAlexaff
Othmar Moser, Michael C. Riddell, Max L. Eckstein, Peter Adolfsson, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret, Louisa van den Boom, Pieter Gillard, Kirsten Nørgaard, Nick Oliver, Dessi P. Zaharieva, Tadej Battelino, Carine de Beaufort, Richard M. Bergenstal, Bruce A. Buckingham, Eda Cengiz, Asma Deeb, Tim Heise, Simon Heller, Aaron J. Kowalski, Lalantha Leelarathna, Chantal Mathieu, Christoph Stettler, Martin Tauschmann, Hood Thabit, Emma G. Wilmot, Harald Sourij, Carmel E. Smart, Peter G. Jacobs, Richard M. Bracken, Julia K. Mader

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetologia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalDiabetes CanadaYork University
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeMedizinische Universität GrazRoche Diabetes CareServierKarl-Franzens-Universität GrazAbbott Diabetes CareSwansea UniversityNewcastle UniversityKing's College LondonNovo NordiskMylanDexcomNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchEuropean CommissionMedizinische Universität InnsbruckUniversität InnsbruckKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation TrustMannKind CorporationPfizerInsulet CorporationBayer HealthCareSanofiAmgenAstraZenecaEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsContinuous glucose monitoringMedicineDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesPosition statementHuman physiologyDiabetes managementBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringType 1 diabetesHealth professionalsType 2 Diabetes MellitusPhysical exerciseIntensive care medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicineEndocrinologyHealth careFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations207
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDiabetologiaSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207