MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381377783 · doi:10.2337/db23-1161-p

1161-P: Patterns of Diabetes Distress (DD) and Glycemic Outcomes in Teens with Type 1 Diabetes (T1D)

2023· article· en· W4381377783 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
KATHERINE WENTZELL, LIANE J. TINSLEY, LISA K. VOLKENING, Dayna E. McGill, BARBARA J. ANDERSON-THOMAS, Lori M. Laffel

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGlycemicDiabetes mellitusDistressType 1 diabetesInternal medicineType 2 diabetesPediatricsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: DD distracts from T1D self-management, contributing to suboptimal glycemia. Yet, DD can change day-to-day and over time. We compared A1c trends in teens with increasing vs. decreasing DD over time. Methods: At baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months, participants (N=301) ages 13-17 years completed the Problem Areas in Diabetes Survey—Pediatric scale; higher scores indicate more DD with ≥41 indicating elevated DD. We identified three trajectories: participants with low baseline DD, who then reported persistent high DD; participants with high baseline DD, who then had persistent low DD levels; all others. Mean A1c levels were compared at baseline and 18 months. Results: At baseline, participants (49% male, 78% white) were 15.0±1.3 years old with T1D duration 6.5±3.7 years; 59% used insulin pumps; 12% used CGM; A1c was 8.5±1.1%. Twenty-six participants (9%) had elevated DD at baseline and then low DD at subsequent time points; A1c did not change significantly from 0 to 18 months for these participants (p=.33). Thirty-five participants (12%) had low DD at baseline and then elevated DD at subsequent time points; A1c increased significantly from 0 to 18 months for these participants (p=.01). The remaining participants (n=240) had varying levels of DD with no significant change in A1C (p=.05). Conclusion: Adolescents who initially had low DD and reported increasing DD over time may be at risk for worsening glycemic outcomes. Disclosure K.Wentzell: None. L.J.Tinsley: None. L.K.Volkening: None. D.E.Mcgill: Employee; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. B.J.Anderson-thomas: None. L.M.Laffel: Advisory Panel; Medtronic, Lilly Diabetes, Novo Nordisk, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Roche Diagnostics, Provention Bio, Inc., Consultant; Dexcom, Inc., Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Medscape. Funding National Institutes of Health (T32DK007260); National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK095273); JDRF (2-SRA-2014-253-M-B)

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)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207