Utility and precision evidence of technology in the treatment of type 1 diabetes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The greatest change in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes in the last decade has been the explosion of technology assisting in all aspects of diabetes therapy, from glucose monitoring to insulin delivery and decision making. As such, the aim of our systematic review was to assess the utility of these technologies as well as identify any precision medicine-directed findings to personalize care. METHODS: Screening of 835 peer-reviewed articles was followed by systematic review of 70 of them (focusing on randomized trials and extension studies with ≥50 participants from the past 10 years). RESULTS: We find that novel technologies, ranging from continuous glucose monitoring systems, insulin pumps and decision support tools to the most advanced hybrid closed loop systems, improve important measures like HbA1c, time in range, and glycemic variability, while reducing hypoglycemia risk. Several studies included person-reported outcomes, allowing assessment of the burden or benefit of the technology in the lives of those with type 1 diabetes, demonstrating positive results or, at a minimum, no increase in self-care burden compared with standard care. Important limitations of the trials to date are their small size, the scarcity of pre-planned or powered analyses in sub-populations such as children, racial/ethnic minorities, people with advanced complications, and variations in baseline glycemic levels. In addition, confounders including education with device initiation, concomitant behavioral modifications, and frequent contact with the healthcare team are rarely described in enough detail to assess their impact. CONCLUSIONS: Our review highlights the potential of technology in the treatment of people living with type 1 diabetes and provides suggestions for optimization of outcomes and areas of further study for precision medicine-directed technology use in type 1 diabetes.
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 | 0.031 | 0.178 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".