MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381377551 · doi:10.2337/db23-3-or

3-OR: Severe Hypoglycemia among Older Adults with Diabetes (iNPHORM, USA)

2023· article· en· W4381377551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
ALEXANDRIA RATZKI-LEEWING, JASON E. BLACK, Guangyong Zou, BRIDGET L. RYAN, Stewart B. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHypoglycemiaInsulinInternal medicineType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyPopulationIncidence (geometry)Type 2 diabetes

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite an aging US diabetes population, little is known about the real-world frequency of iatrogenic severe hypoglycemia (SH) among older adults. We analyzed iNPHORM data to address this gap. People ≥60-year-old with T1DM or T2DM on insulin and/or secretagogues were recruited from a probability-based internet panel. Data on SH were obtained via a screener, baseline, and 12 monthly follow-ups. Crude SH incidence rates (IRs) and proportions (IPs) were calculated overall, and by diabetes type, medication type, and mode of SH recovery. N=307 were analyzed (T1DM: 8.5%; age: 67.5 [SD:5.5] years; male: 54.1%; retention rate: 81.8%). Among T2DM respondents, 39.9% used insulin without secretagogues, 50.2% secretagogues without insulin, and 10.0% insulin and secretagogues. The overall IP of SH was 19.9 (95%CI: 15.8-24.7)%, and the IR was 0.89 (95%CI: 0.62-1.27) events per person-year (EPPY). People with T1DM had a higher total IP (42.3 [95%CI: 25.5-61.1]%) and IR (2.07 [95%CI: 0.98-4.38] EPPY) than those with T2DM (IP: 17.8 [95%CI: 13.8-22.7]%; IR: 0.78 [95%CI: 0.52-1.15] EPPY), including insulin without secretagogue users (1.09 [95%CI: 0.66-1.80] vs. 0.61 [95%CI: 0.26 to 1.45] [insulin with secretagogues] and 0.50 [95%CI: 0.23 to 1.05] [secretagogues without insulin] EPPY). Emergency care and hospitalization constituted 3.6% (T1DM: 0%; T2DM: 6.7%) and 1.8% (T1DM: 0%; T2DM: 2.2%) of SH (n=224), respectively. Paramedical/hospital-based SH was more common in T2DM (0.06 [95%CI: 0.02-0.19]) than T1DM (0 EPPY) with IRs highest among insulin without secretagogue users (0.11 [95%CI: 0.03-0.47] EPPY). This is the first US prospective study on SH frequency in older adults with diabetes. Most (96.4%) events occurred at-home, underscoring the need for self-reported SH capture. Overall IPs and IRs were greater in T1DM than T2DM; but those with T2DM had more healthcare-based events. To mitigate undue health and economic costs, it is imperative clinicians remain vigilant to preventing SH in this vulnerable and growing population. Disclosure A.Ratzki-leewing: Consultant; Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Research Support; Sanofi. J.E.Black: None. G.Zou: None. B.L.Ryan: None. S.B.Harris: Advisory Panel; Bayer Inc., AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Dexcom, Inc., Novo Nordisk A/S, Novo Nordisk Canada Inc., Sanofi, Consultant; Abbott Diabetes, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Other Relationship; American Diabetes Association, Research Support; Abvance Therapeutics, Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Funding Sanofi Global

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207