MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399688253 · doi:10.2337/db24-328-or

328-OR: Hypoglycemia Associated with Physical Activity in Automated Insulin Delivery Users—Frequency and Prevention Strategies

2024· article· en· W4399688253 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Valérie Boudreau, Jane E. Yardley, CATHERINE L. RUSSON, TAMANNA CHAHAL, Roxane St-Amand, Rémi Rabasa‐Lhoret, JOSÉPHINE MOLVEAU

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSnackingInterquartile rangeInsulin pumpHypoglycemiaInsulinMealGlycemicDiabetes mellitusGlimepirideInternal medicineBolus (digestion)DiscontinuationPhysical therapyType 1 diabetesType 2 diabetesEndocrinologyObesity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction & Objectives: Even with automated insulin delivery (AID), hypoglycemia during and after physical activity (PA) remains a concern for people living with type 1 diabetes (pwT1D). The aim is to evaluate frequency of and strategies to prevent and treat hypoglycemic events (HE). Methods: Active pwT1D shared glycemic and pump data, PA logbook and food diaries for any HE prevention or correction strategy for 6-weeks. Values are presented as median (interquartile range) unless specified. We looked at HE on CGM defined according to international consensus in AID-treated pwT1D during, 1-h and 4-h post-PA using Chi2 or Anova tests. Results: A total of 25 pwT1D (17 females) aged 50 (23 to 75) years and A1c 6.7 (6.4-7.0) % completed 436 PA sessions: 17 (6-49) per participant lasting 50 (35-60) minutes, with 25.2% low, 63.8% moderate and 11.0% vigorous intensity. Participants’ prevention strategies included: pre-exercise snack (37.4%; 20 (15-25) g of carbohydrates), PA mode (18.8%), meal bolus reduction (15.6%), snacking during/after (11.2%; 24 (15-35) g of carbohydrates), pump disconnection (4.6%), and other strategies (16.5%; e.g. PA session suspended, or basal insulin reduced/suspended). Reported strategies per session were 29.6% for no strategy, 34.6% for one and 35.8% for > 1. HE occurred 5 times during PA (1.1%), 28 (6.4%) 1-h post PA and 61 (14.0%) 4-h post-PA. PA intensity and duration are associated with HE during PA (p = 0.006 and p = 0.001, respectively). Insulin on board at PA start was not associated with HE, but last meal insulin bolus (before PA) was associated to 1-h post-PA HE (p = 0.018). Participants (n = 7) using an open-source AID had significantly less hypoglycemia 4-h post-PA (6.6 vs. 15.4% of sessions, p = 0.021). Conclusion: Carbohydrate intake is the most common prevention strategy. Incidence of hypoglycemia during PA is low but tends to increase after PA. Open-source AID may reduce post-PA hypoglycemia. Disclosure V. Boudreau: None. J.E. Yardley: Speaker's Bureau; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; LifeScan Diabetes Institute. C.L. Russon: None. T. Chahal: None. R. St-Amand: None. R.P.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. J. Molveau: None. Funding Diabetes Canada (OG-3-21-5586-RR)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207