963-P: Is Using an Automated Insulin Delivery System Associated with a Higher Physical Activity Frequency? A BETTER Registry Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction & Objective: To explore the association between using an automated insulin delivery (AID) system and physical activity (PA) frequency among people with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Methods: Cross-sectional study using the Canadian BETTER T1D registry. Inclusion criteria: T1D; aged ≥ 18 y/o; reported PA with a validated questionnaire (Canadian Community Health Survey). “PA” includes organized or unorganized sports, fitness or recreational PA lasting ≥ 10 consecutive minutes; “moderate to vigorous PA” is PA that makes participants sweat at least a little and breathe harder. Regression models (with and without adjustment for imbalanced variables - sex, age, T1D duration) were used to compare PA frequency among treatment options, with pairwise comparison between the AID group and each of the other groups. Results: Among 1213 participants, the AID group and pump+continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) group had a similar frequency of PA and moderate to vigorous PA, but these levels were higher in the AID group than those of injections+CGM and no-CGM groups (Table). Conclusion: In real-world settings, compared with injections+CGM or No-CGM, AID users within the BETTER T1D registry have a higher frequency of PA and moderate to vigorous PA. However, these frequencies are similar between AID and pump+CGM users. Disclosure Z. Wu: None. J.E. Yardley: Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; LifeScan Diabetes Institute. T. Chahal: None. C. Guédet: None. V. Messier: None. C. Grou: None. V. Boudreau: None. A. Brazeau: Other Relationship; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF), Diabète québec, Fonds de recherche du Québec en Santé. R. Rabasa-Lhoret: Other Relationship; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer Inc., Boehringer-Ingelheim, Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Diabetes Canada. Other Relationship; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Cystic Fibrosis Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, FFRD - Fondation Francophone pour la Recherche du Diabète. Other Relationship; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Research Support; Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF). Other Relationship; Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline plc. Consultant; HLS Therapeutics Inc., Insulet Corporation. Speaker's Bureau; CPD Networks. Other Relationship; Medtronic. Consultant; Pfizer Inc. Speaker's Bureau; Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc. Other Relationship; Sanofi. Speaker's Bureau; Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated. Research Support; SFD - Société Francophone du Diabète. Funding Canadian Institutes of Health Research (JT1-157204) and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (4-SRA-2018-651-Q-R)
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".