Comparison of Nocturnal Glucose After Exercise Among Dual-Hormone, Single-Hormone Algorithm-Assisted Insulin Delivery System and Usual Care in Adults and Adolescents Living with Type 1 Diabetes: A Pooled Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Available studies comparing the efficacy of dual-hormone (DH)-algorithm-assisted insulin delivery (AID), single-hormone (SH)-AID and usual care on postexercise overnight glucose in people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) have had different outcomes. By pooling data from all available studies, we aim to draw stronger conclusions. Methods: Data were pooled from two three-arm, open-label, randomized, controlled, crossover studies. Forty-one adults [median (Q1, Q3) age: 34.0 years (29.5, 51.0), mean HbA1c: 7.5% ± 1.0%] and 17 adolescents with T1D [age: 14.0 (13.0, 16.0), HbA1c: 7.8% ± 0.8%] underwent DH-AID, SH-AID, and usual care. Each intervention involved evening aerobic exercise (60-min). The primary outcome, time in range% (TIR%) overnight (00:00–06:00) postexercise based on continuous glucose monitoring, was compared among treatments using linear mixed effect model or generalized linear mixed model. Results: Among adults , mean TIR% was 94.0% ± 11.9%, 83.1% ± 20.5%, and 65.1% ± 37.0% during DH-AID, SH-AID, and usual care intervention, respectively ( P < 0.05 for all between-group comparisons). DH-AID was superior to SH-AID and usual care, and SH-AID was superior to usual care regarding hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia prevention, but not glycemic variability. Among adolescents , DH-AID and SH-AID reduced dysglycemia, but not glycemic variability, better than usual care. Glycemic outcomes were similar between DH-AID and SH-AID. Conclusion: AID systems allow improved postexercise nocturnal glycemic management than usual care for both adults and adolescents. DH-AID was better than SH-AID among adults, but not adolescents.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".