382-P: Comparison of Intranasal and Injectable Glucagon Administration among Pediatric Population Responders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Intranasal glucagon (INg) might improve the management of severe hypoglycemia (SH) at school in children with type 1 diabetes (T1D), which is a major concern of our patient partners. Objectives: We compared the performance of parents of children with T1D & school workers (SW) for INg and injectable glucagon (IJg) administration. We also assessed the enablers and barriers associated with each glucagon and preferred teaching methods. Methods: After watching a video on glucagon administration, Patients and SW (30/group) administered both glucagon in random order in 2 simulated scenarios, followed by an individual interview. Performance was rated by a direct observer: completion time, successful execution of predefined key steps and critical steps. Results: Both groups had a better performance with INg than IJg (Fig 1). The majority preferred INg for its ease of use, safety in the pediatric context and better acceptability by SW. Some participants thought that IJg is more effective and useful for off-label smaller doses to prevent SH. Preferred teaching methods were videos and workshops, but only videos could be sufficient for INg. Conclusions: INg is faster and more likely to be successfully administered than IJg by. Implementing mandatory video-based trainings for SW could improve SH management and the involvement of SW. Disclosure Y.Wang: None. A.Brazeau: Other Relationship; Dexcom, Inc., Diabète québec, Ordre des diététistes nutritionnistes du Québec, Research Support; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Fonds de recherche du Québec en Santé. R.Rabasa-lhoret: Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Abbott, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Novo Nordisk Canada Inc., Sanofi, Lilly, Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., Insulet Corporation. C.Gagnon: Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk, Other Relationship; Ascendis Pharma A/S, Research Support; Novo Nordisk. F.Bernatchez: None. S.Chouinard-castonguay: None. M.Tremblay: None. A.Vanasse: None. M.Megalli: None. M.Millette: Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk Canada Inc., Pfizer Inc. G.Boulet: Other Relationship; Dexcom, Inc. M.Henderson: None. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research (157204); JDRF (2018651)
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".