Consensus Considerations and Good Practice Points for Use of Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems in Hospital Settings.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems provide frequent glucose measurements in interstitial fluid and have been used widely in ambulatory settings for diabetes management. During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, regulators in the U.S. and Canada temporarily allowed for CGM systems to be used in hospitals with the aim of reducing health care professional COVID-19 exposure and limiting use of personal protective equipment. As such, studies on hospital CGM system use have been possible. With improved sensor accuracy, there is increased interest in CGM usage for diabetes management in hospitals. Laboratorians and health care professionals must determine how to integrate CGM usage into practice. The aim of this consensus guidance document is to provide an update on the application of CGM systems in hospital, with insights and opinions from laboratory medicine, endocrinology, and nursing.
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 | 0.181 | 0.369 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.030 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".