MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Principles of Software Engineering for the Cost-Effective Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes (T2D)

2023· article· en· W4366492164 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nellore Manoj Kumar, Pratibha Kumari, Katikireddy Srinivas, Mal Hari Prasad, M. Madhavi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgrammerType 2 diabetesReuseMedicinePopulationRandomized controlled trialDiabetes mellitusControl (management)SoftwareGerontologyComputer scienceIncentiveNursingEngineeringEnvironmental healthArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diabetes is growing increasingly prevalent as a result of changes in people's diets and lifestyles, in addition to increases in income. Self-care on the part of diabetic patients is an essential component of diabetes management. The ability of patients to self-manage their conditions can benefit significantly by assistance provided by other patients. To that aim, the purpose of this paper is to study how Software Engineering and Software Reuse can improve the quality of care as well as the cost-effectiveness of treatment for chronic diseases in Canada, namely Type-2 Diabetes (T2D). In the Hispanic and Latino adolescent population of Sacramento County, the objective of the health education programme known as “Hidratación Saludable” is to bring the rate of the development of type 2 diabetes down to a more manageable level. Teenagers are the beneficiaries, while their parents will make up the audience for this particular message. Finally, the software that was developed was put to use to simulate a randomized controlled trial (RCT), which was done in order to compare the cost-effectiveness of two preventative programs-gym incentive programmers and diabetes prevention programs-against a control group that did not take part in any preventative programmer.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.283 · 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
GenreMethods

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetes Management and Research→French-language works237,207→