MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404241084 · doi:10.1089/dia.2024.0406

Impact of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Versus Blood Glucose Monitoring to Support a Carbohydrate-Restricted Nutrition Intervention in People with Type 2 Diabetes

2024· article· en· W4404241084 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Holly Willis, Stephen E. Asche, Amy L. McKenzie, Rebecca N. Adams, Caroline G. P. Roberts, Brittanie M. Volk, Shannon Krizka, Shaminie J. Athinarayanan, Alison R. Zoller, Richard M. Bergenstal

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes Technology & Therapeutics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsMedicineContinuous glucose monitoringDiabetes mellitusBlood Glucose Self-MonitoringCarbohydrateBlood glucose monitoringType 1 diabetesIntervention (counseling)Type 2 diabetesIntensive care medicineInternal medicineEndocrinologyEmergency medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Low- and very-low-carbohydrate eating patterns, including ketogenic eating, can reduce glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has also been shown to improve glycemic outcomes, such as time in range (TIR; % time with glucose 70–180 mg/dL), more than blood glucose monitoring (BGM). CGM-guided nutrition interventions are sparse. The primary objective of this study was to compare differences in change in TIR when people with T2D used either CGM or BGM to guide dietary intake and medication management during a medically supervised ketogenic diet program (MSKDP) delivered via continuous remote care. Methods: IGNITE (Impact of Glucose moNitoring and nutrItion on Time in rangE) study participants were randomized to use CGM ( n = 81) or BGM ( n = 82) as part of a MSKDP. Participants and their care team used CGM and BGM data to support dietary choices and medication management. Glycemia, medication use, ketones, dietary intake, and weight were assessed at baseline (Base), month 1 (M1), and month 3 (M3); differences between arms and timepoints were evaluated. Results: Adults ( n = 163) with a mean (standard deviation) T2D duration of 9.7 (7.7) years and HbA1c of 8.1% (1.2%) participated. TIR improved from Base to M3, 61–89% for CGM and 63%–85% for BGM ( P < 0.001), with no difference in change between arms ( P = 0.26). Additional CGM metrics also improved by M1, and improvements were sustained through M3. HbA1c decreased by ≥1.5% from Base to M3 for both CGM and BGM arms ( P < 0.001). Diabetes medications were de-intensified based on change in medication effect scores from Base to M3 ( P < 0.001). Total energy and carbohydrate intake decreased ( P < 0.001), and participants in both arms lost clinically significant weight ( P < 0.001). Conclusion: Both the CGM and BGM arms saw similar and significant improvements in glycemia and other diabetes-related outcomes during this MSKDP. Additional CGM-guided nutrition intervention research is needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetes Technology & TherapeuticsSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207