International comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes: an update and extension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims To update and extend a previous cross‐sectional international comparison of glycaemic control in people with type 1 diabetes. Methods Data were obtained for 520,392 children and adults with type 1 diabetes from 17 population and five clinic‐based data sources in countries or regions between 2016 and 2020. Median HbA 1c (IQR) and proportions of individuals with HbA 1c < 58 mmol/mol (<7.5%), 58–74 mmol/mol (7.5–8.9%) and ≥75 mmol/mol (≥9.0%) were compared between populations for individuals aged <15, 15–24 and ≥25 years. Logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) of HbA 1c < 58 mmol/mol (<7.5%) relative to ≥58 mmol/mol (≥7.5%), stratified and adjusted for sex, age and data source. Where possible, changes in the proportion of individuals in each HbA 1c category compared to previous estimates were calculated. Results Median HbA 1c varied from 55 to 79 mmol/mol (7.2 to 9.4%) across data sources and age groups so a pooled estimate was deemed inappropriate. OR (95% CI) for HbA 1c < 58 mmol/mol (<7.5%) were 0.91 (0.90–0.92) for women compared to men, 1.68 (1.65–1.71) for people aged <15 years and 0.81 (0.79–0.82) aged15–24 years compared to those aged ≥25 years. Differences between populations persisted after adjusting for sex, age and data source. In general, compared to our previous analysis, the proportion of people with an HbA 1c < 58 mmol/l (<7.5%) increased and proportions of people with HbA 1c ≥ 75 mmol/mol (≥9.0%) decreased. Conclusions Glycaemic control of type 1 diabetes continues to vary substantially between age groups and data sources. While some improvement over time has been observed, glycaemic control remains sub‐optimal for most people with Type 1 diabetes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".