Control-IQ Technology Positively Impacts Patient Reported Outcome Measures and Glycemic Control in Youth with Type 1 Diabetes in a Real-World Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective. To determine the impact of the t:slim X2 insulin pump with Control-IQ technology on the quality of life and glycemic control in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and their parents in a real-world setting. Research Design and Methods. We conducted a single-center, prospective study on pediatric patients (6–18 years old) with T1D using a Tandem t:slim X2 pump and initiating Control-IQ technology as part of routine care. Youth (≥8 years) and parents completed validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and the end of the study (16 weeks). Glycemic control measures were recorded at baseline and every 4 weeks until the end of the study. Results. Fifty-nine youth participated; the median (IQR) age was 13.8 (11.1, 15.7) years, and T1D duration was 6.3 (3.1, 8.4) years. INSPIRE scores (evaluating expectations (baseline) and impact (post) of Control-IQ technology) were favorable, unchanged at the end of the study for youth, and lower for parents ( p = 0.04 ). Other PROM scores improved by the end of the study with mean (95% CI) differences for youth and parents, respectively, as follows: Diabetes Impact and Device Satisfaction (DIDS) Scale Diabetes Impact −1.08 (−1.51, −0.64) ( p < 0.001 ) and −1.41 (−1.96, −0.87) ( p < 0.001 ); DIDS Scale Device Satisfaction +0.43 (0.11, 0.74) ( p = 0.01 ) and +0.58 (0.31, 0.85) ( p < 0.001 ); Hypoglycemia Fear Survey −4.41 (−7.65, −1.17) ( p = 0.01 ) and −7.64 (−11.66, −3.62) ( p < 0.001 ); and WHO-5 Well-Being Index +5.10 (−1.40, 11.6) ( p = 0.12 ) and +9.60 (3.40, 15.8) ( p = 0.003 ). The mean time in range increased from 52.6% at baseline to 62.6% ( p < 0.001 ) at 4 weeks, sustained to 16 weeks. Conclusions. Initiation of Control-IQ technology in a real-world setting significantly reduced the impact of diabetes on daily life while simultaneously improving glycemic control. Trial Registration. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04838561 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04838561?term=Control-IQ&cond=Type+1+Diabetes&cntry=CA&draw=2&rank=1).
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".