MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154886241 · doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2021.04.004

Motivational Stage at Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) Initiation in Pediatric Type 1 Diabetes Is Associated With Current Glycemic Control but Does Not Predict Future CGM Adherence or Glycemic Control

2021· article· en· W3154886241 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kate C. Verbeeten, Jason R. Chan, Nadia Sourial, Jennilea Courtney, Brenda Bradley, Karen McAssey, Cheril Clarson, Susan Kirsch, Jacqueline R. Curtis, Farid H. Mahmud, Tammy Cooper, Christine Richardson, Margaret L. Lawson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Diabetes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMarkham Stouffville HospitalMcMaster Children's HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteAgricultural Research Institute of OntarioChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
FundersFedDev OntarioDexcomJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation CanadaJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation United States of AmericaAmerican Diabetes Association
KeywordsGlycemicMedicineContinuous glucose monitoringCurrent (fluid)Type 1 diabetesStage (stratigraphy)Type 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusIntensive care medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The Timing of Initiation of Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Established Pediatric Diabetes (CGM TIME) Trial is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial in children with type 1 diabetes, comparing simultaneous pump and CGM with CGM initiation 6 months later (Paradigm, Veo, Enlite Sensor, Medtronic Canada). This study addresses the ability of SOCRATES (Stages Of Change Readiness And Treatment Eagerness Scale) to classify children and parents into distinct motivational stages and identify the stages' association with glycated hemoglobin (A1C) at trial entry and outcomes 6 months after CGM initiation. METHODS: Ninety-eight of 99 eligible children 10 to 18 years of age and 137 of 141 eligible parents completed SOCRATES at trial entry and 6 months later. Parent-child agreement for motivational stage was determined by weighted kappa. Linear regression was used to examine association between motivational stage and i) A1C at trial entry and ii) change in A1C and CGM adherence 6 months after CGM initiation. RESULTS: More than 87% of children and 88% of parents were classified into distinct motivational stages, with weak parent-child agreement. At trial entry, motivational stage was associated with A1C, which was 1.02% higher for children in the Action stage than in the Precontemplation stage (p<0.0001). When compared with children of parents in Precontemplation, A1C for children of parents in the Maintenance and Action stages were 0.83% (p=0.02) and 0.36% (p=0.048) higher, respectively. Precontemplation was associated with shorter diabetes duration. Motivational stage at CGM initiation did not predict change in A1C or CGM adherence 6 months later. CONCLUSIONS: SOCRATES can categorize children with type 1 diabetes and their parents into motivational stages. Although motivational stage was associated with glycemic control at trial entry, it did not predict future diabetes-related behaviour or A1C.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of DiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207