Perception of People With Diabetes Regarding Blood Glucose Meters That Support Achievement of Self-Management Goals: Online evaluation in United States, Canada, France, and Germany. (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Blood glucose meters remain an effective tool for glucose monitoring, but not all meters provide the same level of insight beyond numerical glucose results. OBJECTIVE To investigate the perceptions of people with diabetes (PWDs) of four meters and how they support the achievement of self-management goals recommended by diabetes clinical practice guidelines. METHODS 1192 PWDs from four countries reviewed features of four meters using unbranded interactive webpages and determined which meter ranked highest in terms of meeting glucose management goals in various clinical scenarios. RESULTS Meter A (OneTouch Reflect) ranked highest (p=<0.05) in all scenarios vs. meters B, C, or D. Participants with type 2 diabetes ranked meter A slightly higher than participants with type 1 diabetes. Results were not statistically different among participants from the 4 countries. CONCLUSIONS PWDs had the strongest preference for a meter providing insights, encouragement, and guidance to support achievement of glucose self-management goals.
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 | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".