Real‐world glycaemic outcomes in adult persons with type 1 diabetes using a real‐time continuous glucose monitor compared to an intermittently scanned glucose monitor: A retrospective observational study from the Canadian LMC diabetes registry (REAL‐CGM‐T1D)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Real‐time continuous glucose monitoring (rtCGM) and intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM) have both been shown to improve glycaemic outcomes in people with T1D. The aim of this study was to compare real‐world glycaemic outcomes at 6–12 months in a propensity score matched cohort of CGM naïve adults with T1D who initiated a rtCGM or an isCGM. Among the matched rtCGM and isCGM cohorts ( n = 143/cohort), rtCGM users had a significantly greater HbA 1c benefit compared to isCGM users (adjusted difference, −3 mmol/mol [95% CI, −5 to −1]; −0.3% [95% CI, −0.5 to −0.1]; p = 0.01). There was a significantly greater lowering of HbA 1c for rtCGM compared to isCGM when baseline HbA 1c was <69 mmol/mol (8.5%) (adjusted difference, −4 mmol/mol [95% CI, −7 mmol/mol to −2 mmol/mol]; −0.4% [95% CI, −0.6% to −0.2%]; p < 0.001), and in MDI users (adjusted difference, −3 mmol/mol [95% CI, −6 mmol/mol to −0 mmol/mol]; −0.3% [95% CI ‐0.5% to 0.0%], p = 0.04). The rtCGM cohort had significantly greater time in range (58.3 ± 16.1% vs. 54.5 ± 17.1%, p = 0.03), lower time below range (2.1 ± 2.7% vs. 6.1 ± 5.0%, p < 0.001) and lower glycaemic variability compared to the isCGM cohort. In this real‐world analysis of adults with T1D, rtCGM users had a significantly greater reduction in HbA 1c at 6–12 months compared to isCGM, and significantly greater time in range, lower time below range and lower glycaemic variability, compared to a matched cohort of isCGM users.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".