Continuous Glucose Monitoring Metrics and Birth Weight: Informing Management of Type 1 Diabetes Throughout Pregnancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine gestational weekly changes in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) metrics and 24-h glucose profiles and their relationship to infant birth weight in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: An analysis of >10.5 million CGM glucose measures from 386 pregnant women with type 1 diabetes from two international multicenter studies was performed. CGM glucose metrics and 24-h glucose profiles were calculated for each gestational week, and the relationship to normal (10-90th percentile) and large (>90th percentile) for gestational age (LGA) birth weight infants was determined. RESULTS: Mean CGM glucose concentration fell and percentage of time spent in the pregnancy target range of 3.5-7.8 mmol/L (63-140 mg/dL) increased in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and plateaued until 28 weeks of gestation, before further improvement in mean glucose and percentage of time in range until delivery. Maternal CGM glucose metrics diverged at 10 weeks of gestation, with significantly lower mean CGM glucose concentration (7.1 mmol/L; 95% CI 7.05-7.15 [127.8 mg/dL; 95% CI 126.9-128.7] vs. 7.5 mmol/L; 95% CI 7.45-7.55 [135 mg/dL; 95% CI 134.1-135.9]) and higher percentage of time in range (55%; 95% CI 54-56 vs. 50%; 95% CI 49-51) in women who had normal versus LGA. The 24-h glucose profiles were significantly higher across the day from 10 weeks of gestation in LGA. CONCLUSIONS: Normal birth weight is associated with achieving significantly lower mean CGM glucose concentration across the 24-h day and higher CGM time in range from before the end of the first trimester, emphasizing the need for a shift in clinical management, with increased focus on using weekly CGM glucose targets for optimizing maternal glycemia from early pregnancy.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".