MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311993438 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-054958

Study protocol: a randomised controlled proof-of-concept real-world study – does maximising time in range using hybrid closed loop insulin delivery and a low carbohydrate diet restore the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes?

2022· article· en· W4311993438 on OpenAlexaff
Faye Baxter, Nicola Baillie, Shareen Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of EdinburghTandem Diabetes CareDexcomUniversity of DundeeLeona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
KeywordsMedicineInsulin deliveryGlucagonProtocol (science)InsulinClosed loopProof of conceptRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineEndocrinologyDiabetes mellitusType 1 diabetesAlternative medicinePathologyControl engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction People with type 1 diabetes (T1D) develop an impaired glucagon response to hypoglycaemia within 5 years of diagnosis, increasing their risk of severe hypoglycaemia. It is not known whether eliminating hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia allows recovery of this glucagon response. Hybrid closed loop (HCL) technologies improve glycaemic time in range (TIR). However, post-prandial glycaemic excursions are still evident. Consuming a low carbohydrate diet (LCD) may minimise these excursions. Methods and analysis This feasibility study will assess if maximising TIR (glucose ≥3.9 mmol/L≤10 mmol/L) using HCL systems plus an LCD (defined here as <130 g carbohydrate/day) for >8 months, restores the glucagon response to insulin-induced hypoglycaemia. Adults (n=24) with T1D (C-peptide <200 pmol/L), naïve to continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and HCL systems, will be recruited and randomised to: group 1 (non-HCL) to continue their standard diabetes care with intermittent blinded CGM; or group 2 (HCL-LCD) to use the HCL system and follow a LCD. Baseline data on diet and glycaemia will be collected from all participants. The HCL-LCD group will then enter a 2-week run-in to acclimatise to their devices. Throughout, the HCL-LCD group will have their glucose closely monitored and adjusted aiming for glycaemic TIR >70%. Participants will have their glucagon response to hypoglycaemia measured at the beginning and 8 months later at the study end using a stepped hyperinsulinaemic hypoglycaemic clamp, in combination with the stable isotopes 6,6-2H2-glucose (D2-glucose) and 1,1,2,3,3-2H5-glycerol (D5-glycerol) to assess glucose and glycerol kinetics. The impact of hypoglycaemia on symptoms and cognitive function will be assessed during each clamp study. The primary outcome is the difference in the glucagon response to hypoglycaemia between and within groups at baseline versus study end. Ethics and dissemination Ethical (20/SS/0117)/institutional review board (2021/0001) approval has been obtained. The study will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT04614168 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.014

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207