MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390707199 · doi:10.2337/dc23-1328

Managing Impending Nonsevere Hypoglycemia With Oral Carbohydrates in Type 1 Diabetes: The REVERSIBLE Trial

2024· article· en· W4390707199 on OpenAlexafffund
Ran Cheng, Nadine Taleb, Zekai Wu, Delphine Bouchard, Valérie Parent, Marie‐Laure Lalanne‐Mistrih, Valérie Boudreau, Virginie Messier, Marie‐Josée Lacombe, Caroline Grou, Anne‐Sophie Brazeau, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Care · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité de MontréalMontreal Clinical Research InstituteHôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
FundersBreakthrough T1D CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchJuvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Canada
KeywordsMedicineHypoglycemiaDiabetes mellitusCrossover studyInternal medicineType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyPlasma glucoseInsulinGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Current guidelines recommend initiating treatment for nonsevere (NS) hypoglycemia with 15 g carbohydrates (CHO) at 15-min intervals when blood glucose (BG) reaches <70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L). Despite this recommendation, NS hypoglycemia management remains challenging for individuals living with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We aimed to assess the efficacy of 15 g CHO at higher BG levels. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 29 individuals with T1D participated in an open-label crossover study. After an inpatient subcutaneous insulin-induced decrease in BG in the fasting state, 16 g CHO was administered orally at a plasma glucose (PG) of <70 (3.9), ≤80 (4.5), or ≤90 mg/dL (5.0 mmol/L). The primary outcome was time spent in hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) after initial CHO intake. RESULTS: When comparing the <70 (control) with the ≤80 and ≤90 mg/dL treatment groups, 100 vs. 86 (P = 0.1201) vs. 34% (P < 0.0001) of participants reached hypoglycemia, respectively. These hypoglycemic events lasted 26.0 ± 12.6 vs. 17.9 ± 14.7 (P = 0.026) vs. 7.1 ± 11.8 min (P = 0.002), with a PG nadir of 56.57 ± 9.91 vs. 63.60 ± 7.93 (P = 0.008) vs. 73.51 ± 9.37 mg/dL (P = 0.002), respectively. In the control group, 69% of participants required more than one treatment to reach or maintain normoglycemia (≥70 mg/dL), compared with 52% in the ≤80 mg/dL group and 31% in the ≤90 mg/dL group, with no significant rebound hyperglycemia (>180 mg/dL) within the first hour. CONCLUSIONS: For some impending NS hypoglycemia episodes, individuals with TID could benefit from CHO intake at a higher BG level.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.622

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes CareSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207