MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360949189 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2023.607

Living With Type 2 Diabetes

2023· article· en· W4360949189 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jamie Anne Bentz, Rebecca Hancock, Zal Press, Francesca Brundisini, Sarah Berglas

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDiabetes Canada
KeywordsReimbursementPsychosocialMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Type 2 diabetesPolypharmacyType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusNursingGerontologyIntensive care medicinePsychiatryHealth carePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We conducted a custom technology review to narratively describe treatment outcomes and considerations important to people living with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Canada, as detailed in patient input provided to CADTH in the past. Patient groups submitted the input described in this review to inform CADTH Reimbursement Reviews, which advise reimbursement decisions made by public drug programs in Canada. CADTH staff produced this report through close engagement with representatives from patient groups that had contributed these inputs, including Diabetes Canada, Type 2 Diabetes Experience Exchange (T2DXX), and Patient Commando. This learning project provided an opportunity for CADTH to explore patient input in a new but rigorous way outside of the time constraints of Reimbursement Reviews for specific drugs. In past patient input, people living with T2DM emphasized that the condition demands intensive, perpetual self-management and has a profound and usually negative impact on their physical, psychosocial, and economic well-being. People living with T2DM want a cure for the condition. In the meantime, to improve their quality of life, they desire treatments that reduce the risk of hyperglycemia and its short- and long-term complications; facilitate weight loss; and improve their mental state, focus, and energy levels. They also desire treatments that can lessen the burden of medication administration, specifically by decreasing polypharmacy and dose frequency and allowing for easy storage, preparation, and administration. They would like medications to reduce the need for blood glucose checks, injections, and insulin, and they hope that new treatments can promote a return to normalcy by providing the freedom to eat and do what they want, when they want. In addition to these desired treatment outcomes, people living with T2DM want medications that cause few or no adverse effects, especially hypoglycemia, weight gain, and gastrointestinal and urogenital side effects. All patient input emphasized the need to increase access to and affordability of T2DM treatments in Canada. When discussing the contexts in which people living with T2DM access and use medications, patient groups also stressed the importance of respect and effective communication in therapeutic and interprofessional relationships; the need to provide and enhance knowledge to support informed decisions about and safe use of medications; and the importance of offering people with T2DM individualized treatment plans and a variety of choices. Patient groups reported limited demographic information on the people they surveyed and interviewed to inform their inputs. Inputs providing demographic information, however, showed that the voices of those belonging to equity-deserving groups in Canada were missing or underrepresented. The treatment outcomes and considerations emphasized in past patient input may differ from those important to members of these groups or may carry additional meaning or significance to them. Future avenues of inquiry and active engagement could focus on gaining insight into the perspectives and preferences of equity-deserving groups that include but are not limited to Black people, Indigenous people, and other people of colour; people living in poverty or with low income; people living in rural and remote communities; adolescents and adults aged 25 years or younger; and members of the LGBTQ2S+ community.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicDiabetes Management and EducationFrench-language works237,207