Barriers to Screening: An Analysis of Factors Impacting Screening for Type 1 Diabetes Prevention Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Participants with stage 1 or 2 type 1 diabetes (T1D) qualify for prevention trials, but factors involved in screening for such trials are largely unknown. Objective: To identify factors associated with screening for T1D prevention trials. Methods: This study included TrialNet Pathway to Prevention participants who were eligible for a prevention trial: oral insulin (TN-07, TN-20), teplizumab (TN-10), abatacept (TN-18), and oral hydroxychloroquine (TN-22). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine participant, site, and study factors at the time of prevention trial accrual. Results: Screening rates for trials were: 50% for TN-07 (584 screened/1172 eligible), 9% for TN-10 (106/1249), 24% for TN-18 (313/1285), 17% for TN-20 (113/667), and 28% for TN-22 (371/1336). Younger age and male sex were associated with higher screening rates for prevention trials overall and for oral therapies. Participants with an offspring with T1D showed lower rates of screening for all trials and oral drug trials compared with participants with other first-degree relatives as probands. Site factors, including larger monitoring volume and US site vs international site, were associated with higher prevention trial screening rates. Conclusions: Clear differences exist between participants who screen for prevention trials and those who do not screen and between the research sites involved in prevention trial screening. Participant age, sex, and relationship to proband are significantly associated with prevention trial screening in addition to key site factors. Identifying these factors can facilitate strategic recruitment planning to support rapid and successful enrollment into prevention trials.
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 | 0.033 | 0.189 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".