Applying Patient Segmentation Using Primary Care Electronic Medical Records to Develop a Virtual Peer-to-Peer Intervention for Patients with Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to design a virtual peer-to-peer intervention for patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) by grouping patients from specific segments using data from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs). Two opposing segments were identified: patients living with diabetes who tend to take several medications (“medication” segment: ~32%) and patients who do not take any diabetes-specific medications (“lifestyle” segment: ~15%). The remaining patients were from two intermediate segments and exhibited medication-taking behavior that placed them midway between the medication and lifestyle segments. Patients were grouped into six workshops (two workshops in each group: medication, lifestyle, and mixed group), including individuals with good and bad control of their disease. Measures of attitudes, learning, and motivation were addressed during and after the workshops. Results showed that patients in the lifestyle segment were more interested in T2D lifestyle control strategies, more satisfied with their in-workshop learning experience, and more motivated to set a goal than those in the medication segment. These results suggest that the proposed intervention may be more viable for patients in the lifestyle segment and that EMR data may be used to tailor behavioral interventions to specific patient groups. Future research is needed to investigate different segmentation approaches (e.g., using data related to smoking, drinking, diet, and physical activity) that could help tailor the intervention more effectively.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".