Fear of hypoglycemia in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents: Effect of pump therapy and continuous glucose monitoring with option of low glucose suspend in the CGM TIME trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine if pump therapy with continuous glucose monitoring offering low glucose suspend (LGS) decreases fear of hypoglycemia among children with type 1 diabetes and their parents. The CGM TIME trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial that enrolled 144 children with type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year (mean duration 3.4 ± 3.1 years) starting pump therapy (MiniMed™ Veo™, Medtronic Canada). CGM (MiniMed™ Enlite™ sensor) offering LGS was introduced simultaneously or delayed for 6 months. Hypoglycemia Fear Scale (HFS) was completed by children ≥10 years old and all parents, at study entry and 12 months later. Simultaneous and Delayed Group participants were combined for all analyses. Subscale scores were compared with paired t-tests, and individual items with paired Wilcoxon tests. Linear regression examined association with CGM adherence. 121/140 parents and 91/99 children ≥10 years had complete data. Mean Behavior subscale score decreased from 21.1 (SD 5.9) to 17.2 (SD 6.1) (p < .001) for children, and 20.7 (SD 7.5) to 17.4 (7.4) (p < .001) for parents. Mean Worry subscale score decreased from 17.9 (SD 11.9) to 11.9 (SD 11.4) (p < .001) for children, and 23.1 (SD 13.2) to 17.6 (SD 10.4) (p < .001) for parents. Median scores for 10/25 child items and 12/25 parent items were significantly lower at 12 months (p < .001). Linear regression found no association between HFS scores and CGM adherence. Insulin pump therapy with CGM offering LGS significantly reduced fear of hypoglycemia not related to CGM adherence in children with type 1 diabetes and their parents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".