1454-P: Food Insecurity in People with Type 1 Diabetes and Glycemic Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This multi-center study aims to explore relationships between individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D) who are at risk for food insecurity and glycemic outcomes. Methods: Electronic health record data from T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) categorized completed Hunger Vital Signs (HVS) questionnaires into at risk and no risk for food insecurity. At-risk individuals were defined as selecting “often true” or “sometimes true” to screening questions, whereas primary outcome was recent A1c levels. Demographic information and diabetes related covariates were assessed for potential relationships. Results: In the total T1D cohort (N=4453), 3.8% were at risk for food insecurity. Stratifying by age, 6% of youth (<18 years) and 5% of adults (>18 years) were at risk. Statistically significant differences were observed among food insecurity risk and insurance type. Of those at risk, 54% had public insurance compared with 7% private. Individuals at risk had a higher mean HbA1c when compared with individuals not at risk (9.4% vs 8.5% respectively, p<.001). The odds of an individual having an HbA1c >7% were higher in the group at risk relative to the group not at risk OR1.4 (95% CI 0.9, 2.1). Conclusion: Individuals in this population who were at risk for food insecurity also had elevated A1c levels. Interventions are needed to identify effective ways of improving food insecurity among people with T1D. Disclosure E.L.Ospelt: None. V.Raman: None. B.Seyoum: None. O.Ebekozien: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc. N.Noor: None. J.Haw: None. S.Hsieh: None. R.S.Weinstock: Consultant; Jaeb Center for Health Research, Other Relationship; Wolters Kluwer Health, Research Support; Insulet Corporation, Medtronic, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk, Boehringer Ingelheim Inc., Hemsley Charitable Trust, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. D.W.Hansen: Research Support; 3Boehringer Ingelheim Canada Ltd./Ltée, Lilly, Insulet Corporation, T1D Exchange, Medtronic. K.Cossen: None. K.Fantasia: None. I.Guttmann-bauman: None. Funding The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".