The SMHP™ position statement on therapeutic carbohydrate reduction for type 1 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the position of the Society of Metabolic Health Practitioners (SMHP) regarding therapeutic carbohydrate reduction (TCR) nutrition interventions for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM). A modified Delphi methodology was used to arrive at a consensus consisting of several focus groups, multiple rounds, and an anonymous survey. The field of endocrinology has seen many new advances for the treatment of T1DM including hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery systems and continuous glucose monitors for better glycaemic control, monoclonal antibodies to delay the onset of disease and increased access to paediatric endocrinologists, among many other noteworthy achievements. Despite these advancements, standard of care approaches to T1DM result in higher than acceptable morbidity and mortality, with a high prevalence of microvascular and macrovascular complications. Insulin resistance in type 1 diabetes is an independent risk factor for adverse outcomes even in well controlled type 1 diabetes. In 2021, only 21% of adults with T1DM in the United States achieved the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA’s) target haemoglobin A1C goal of < 7.0%, while data in the paediatric and adolescent population have demonstrated worse glycaemic control. Supported by observational and interventional evidence, the SMHP advocates for the reevaluation of the prevailing nutritional therapy for T1DM with more broad consideration for TCR. The SMHP recommends open access and clinical support for TCR nutrition interventions for individuals with T1DM of all ages and calls upon the medical community to help foster more attention and research on TCR for T1DM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".