691-P: Characteristics of People with Type 1 Diabetes Who Consider Fear of Hypoglycemia a Barrier to Their Diabetes Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypoglycemia is a common side effect of insulin therapy, the constant threat of hypoglycemia symptoms and consequences may lead people with type 1 diabetes (T1D) to develop fear of hypoglycemia (FOH). This analysis aims to explore the characteristics of people who consider FOH as a barrier to managing diabetes. Methods: Self-reported data from an online T1D registry were analyzed to compare participants who consider FOH a barrier to those who do not (a registry-specific yes/no question) using χ2 test for categorical variables (gender, diabetes technology use, and hypoglycemia history) and the Mann-Whitney Test for age, T1D duration, Hypoglycemia Fear Survey (HFS-II), Hypoglycemia Confidence Survey (HCS), and Diabetes Distress Scale (DDS) scores. Results: Among 780 adults, 65% women, aged 44±15 years, had T1D for 25±15 years, 35% reported HbA1c≤ 7%, and 45% perceived FOH as a barrier. The prevalence of FOH as a barrier was higher in women, participants with history of symptomatic nocturnal or level 3 hypoglycemia, higher HbA1c, higher HFS and DDS scores, and lower HCS scores (Table 1). Conclusion: A significant proportion of adults, in particular women and those with a challenging T1D management (high HbA1c, history of hypoglycemia, diabetes distress, and low hypoglycemia confidence), consider FOH to be a barrier in T1D management, thus it needs to be considered as part of clinical follow-up. Disclosure M.K.Talbo: None. C.Leroux: None. L.Hill: 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".