Feasibility and Impact of Remote Glucose Monitoring Among Patients With Newly Diagnosed Type 1 Diabetes: Single-Center Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Caregivers of children with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes (T1D) maintain close contact with providers for several weeks to facilitate rapid adjustments in insulin dosing regimens. Traditionally, patient glucose values are relayed by telephone for provider feedback, but digital health technology can now enable the remote sharing of glucose data via mobile apps. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of remote glucose monitoring in a population of children and adolescents with newly diagnosed T1D and to explore whether remote monitoring alters habits for self-review of glucose data or perceived ease of provider contact in this population as compared to a nonrandomized control group. METHODS: Data were collected from families who chose to participate in remote monitoring (intervention group) as well as from patients receiving usual care (control group). The intervention group received Bluetooth-capable glucose meters and Apple iPod Touch devices. Patient-generated glucose data were passively relayed from the meter to the iPod Touch and then to both the electronic health record (EHR) and a third-party diabetes data platform, Tidepool. The principal investigator reviewed glucose data daily in the EHR and Tidepool and contacted the participants as needed for insulin dose adjustments during the time between hospital discharge and first clinic appointment. Families in the control group received usual care, which involved keeping written records of glucose values and contacting the diabetes team daily by telephone to relay data and receive treatment recommendations. A total of 40 families (20 for the intervention group and 20 for the control group) participated in the study. All families were surveyed at 1 month and 6 months regarding self-review of glucose data and ease of contacting the diabetes team. RESULTS: Patient-generated glucose data were remotely accessible for 100% of the participants via Tidepool and for 85% via the EHR. Survey data indicated that families in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to review their glucose data using mobile health apps after 1 month (P<.001), but by 6 months, this difference had disappeared. Perceived ease of contacting the clinical team for assistance was lower for the intervention group after 6 months (when receiving usual care) in comparison to during the intervention period (P=.48) and compared with a control group who did not have exposure to remote monitoring (P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: Remote glucose monitoring is feasible among pediatric patients with newly diagnosed T1D and may be associated with the earlier adoption of mobile health apps for self-management. The use of broadscale remote monitoring for T1D in the future will depend on improved access to Bluetooth-enabled mobile devices for all patients, improved interoperability of mobile health apps to enable data transfer on Android as well as Apple devices, and new provider workflows to handle large-scale panel management based on patient-generated health data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04106440; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04106440.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".