Predicting Hypoglycemia and Hyperglycemia Risk During and After Activity for Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To predict hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia risk during and after activity for adolescents with type 1 diabetes (T1D) using real-world data from the Type 1 Diabetes Exercise Initiative Pediatric (T1DEXIP) study. Methods: Adolescents with T1D ( n = 225; [mean ± SD] age = 14 ± 2 years; HbA1c = 7.1 ± 1.3%; T1D duration = 5 ± 4 years; 56% using hybrid closed loop), wearing continuous glucose monitors (CGMs), logged 3738 total activities over 10 days. Repeated Measures Random Forest (RMRF) and Repeated Measures Logistic Regression (RMLR) models were used to predict a composite risk of hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia (>250 mg/dL) within 2 h after starting exercise. Results: RMRF achieved high precision predicting composite risk and was more accurate than RMLR Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC 0.737 vs. 0.661; P < 0.001). Activities with minimal composite risk had a starting glucose between 132 and 160 mg/dL and a glucose rate of change at activity start between −0.4 and −1.9 mg/dL/min. Time <70 mg/dL and time >250 mg/dL during the prior 24 h, HbA1c level, and insulin on board at activity start were also predictive. Separate models explored factors at the end of activity; activities with glucose between 128 and 133 mg/dL and glucose rate of change between 0.4 and −0.6 mg/dL/min had minimal composite risk. Conclusions: Physically active adolescents with T1D should aim to start exercise with an interstitial glucose between 130 and 160 mg/dL with a flat or slightly decreasing CGM trend to minimize risk for developing dysglycemia. Incorporating factors such as historical glucose and insulin can improve prediction modeling for the acute glucose responses to exercise.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".