Does insulin pump therapy offer benefits for behaviour, mood, cognition and HbA1c in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes? A randomised controlled trial with observational follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Improved behaviour, mood, cognition and HbA1c have been reported with short-term use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We sought to re-examine these findings in a randomised controlled trial (RCT), with longitudinal follow-up. METHODS: RCT of youth aged 7-15 years with T1D, at two tertiary paediatric centres. Participants were randomised to commence CSII or continue multiple daily injections (MDI). Behaviour, mood, cognition and HbA1c were assessed. Primary outcome was difference in parent-reported behaviour (BASC-2) at 4 months. After the 4-month RCT, MDI participants commenced CSII; outcomes were reassessed at +2 years. RESULTS: Participating youth (n=101) were randomised to CSII (n=56) or MDI (n=45). Significant differences favouring CSII were found at 4 months in parent-reported behaviour problems (Cohen's d 0.41 (95% CI 0.004 to 0.795); p=0.048) and HbA1c (mean (95% CI) difference: 7 (2.3 to 11.7) mmol/mol (0.6% (0.2 to 1.0%); p=0.001)). Improvements from baseline were documented in mood and cognitive outcomes in both study groups over the 4-month RCT; however, no between-group differences were evident at 4 months. Sixteen of 76 (21%) participants completing assessments at +2 years had discontinued CSII. In n=60 still using CSII, measurements of behaviour, mood and HbA1c were comparable to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Parent-reported behaviour problems and HbA1c, but not mood or neurocognitive outcomes, were clinically significantly lower with CSII, relative to MDI, after 4 months. Observational follow-up indicated no impact of treatment modality at +2 years, relative to baseline levels. Taken together, these data indicate that use of CSII alone does not comprehensively benefit neuropsychological outcomes in childhood T1D.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".