The Relationship Between Hemoglobin A1c, Time in Range, and Glycemic Management Indicator in Patients With Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes in a Tertiary Care Hospital in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to assess the correlation between glycated hemoglobin A1 (HbA1c), time in range (TIR), and glycemic management indicator (GMI) in patients with both type 1 diabetes (T1D) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were using a flash glucose monitoring (FGM) device (FreeStyle Libre; Abbott Diabetic Care, Witney, UK). Methods: This was a retrospective study that looked at T1D and T2D FreeStyle Libre users' LibreView database in the period between January 2020 to June 2022. The study was conducted at the diabetes department at the King Fahad Medical City (KFMC) in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Data were collected from the LibreView website, as well as from the electronic privacy information center (EPIC) hospital records. Results: Data were available for 327 patients, mean age of 33.08(±17.1) years old, and 55.7% were females. HbA1c had a statistically significant correlation with both TIR and GMI with coefficient of correlation (r) values of 0.78 (p<0.001) and 0.82 (p<0.001), respectively. A linear regression model between TIR and Hb1Ac was also developed and found to be statistically significant (p<0.001) with an acceptable R2 value (0.60). Conclusion: Study findings revealed that the %TIR could be a reliable predictor of Hb1Ac. Thus, Freestyle Libre was able to determine Hb1Ac as close to the lab results as possible. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage diabetes patients to achieve at least 70% TIR in order to keep Hb1Ac within the desired range.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".