A Randomized Trial of Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery Postpartum in Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of closed-loop insulin delivery postpartum. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this open-label, randomized controlled trial, postpartum individuals with type 1 diabetes were randomized to hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery with the MiniMed 670G/770G system in automode or sensor-augmented pump therapy in the first 12-weeks postpartum followed by a continuation phase with closed-loop insulin delivery for all until 24 weeks postpartum. RESULTS: Eighteen participants (mean ± SD age 32 ± 3.5 years, diabetes duration 22 ± 7.3 years, and early pregnancy HbA1c 52 ± 6.8 mmol/mol [6.9 ± 0.9%]) completed 24 weeks of postpartum follow-up. In the randomized phase, percent time in range 70-180 mg/dL (3.9-10 mmol/L) did not differ between groups (79.2 ± 8.7% vs. 78.2 ± 6.0%; P = 0.41). Participants randomized to closed-loop insulin delivery spent less time <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) and <54 mg/dL (3.0 mmol/L) (1.7 ± 0.8% vs. 5.5 ± 3.3% [P < 0.001] and 0.3 ± 0.2% vs. 1.1 ± 0.9% [P = 0.008]). Time >180 mg/dL (10 mmol/L) was not different between groups (18.7 ± 8.8% vs. 15.9 ± 7.7%; P = 0.21). In the continuation phase, those initially randomized to sensor-augmented pump therapy had less time <70 mg/dL after initiation of closed-loop insulin delivery (5.5 ± 3.3% vs. 3.3 ± 2.2%; P = 0.039). The closed-loop group maintained similar glycemic metrics in both study phases. There were no episodes of diabetic ketoacidosis or severe hypoglycemia in the randomized or continuation phase in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Women randomized to closed-loop insulin delivery postpartum had less hypoglycemia than those randomized to sensor-augmented pump therapy. There were no safety concerns. These findings are reassuring for use of closed-loop insulin delivery postpartum because of its potential to reduce hypoglycemia.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".