Correlation Between Technology and Improved Outcomes in Youth With Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: Prospective Study Examining Outcomes for Patients With Depression and Those With Public Insurance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adherence to type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) treatment regimens decreases during adolescence. While comorbid depression and health insurance disparities are individually known to potentiate this risk, technological devices for T1DM appear to be protective. Objective: We examined whether technology use impacted the association between depression and poorer health outcomes in T1DM. Given established insurance-based disparities based on technology access, we also studied whether the protective effects of T1DM technology differed among publicly and privately insured youth. Methods: Data were prospectively collected from pediatric patients with T1DM across 3 California medical centers. We used linear and negative binomial regression analyses to examine whether technology use was related to diabetes outcomes and whether this differed based on depression status (technology-by-depression interaction) and health insurance type (technology-by-insurance interaction). Results: Across 1573 patients aged 12 to 25 years (mean age 15.9, SD 2.9 years; n=1050, 66.4%, non-Hispanic White; n=745, 47.0% female), those with a depression diagnosis had higher hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; mean 9.1%, SD 2.1% vs 10.1%, SD 2.2%) and more frequent diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) events per year (mean 0.10, SD 0.36 vs 0.24, SD 0.66) than those without (P=.003). Patients using both a continuous glucose monitor (CGM) and pump had lower HbA1c levels and fewer DKA events per year (mean HbA1c 8.2%, SE 0.1%; mean DKA events per year 0.05, SE 0.01) than those using one device (mean HbA1c 9.0%, SE 0.1%; mean DKA events 0.08, SE 0.1%) or none (mean HbA1c 10.0%, SE 0.1%; mean DKA events 0.19, SE 0.1%; P<.001). While youth with public insurance had significantly higher HbA1c levels than those with commercial insurance (mean 9.3%, SD 2.1% vs 9.0%, SD 2.0%, P<.001), those using a CGM had no reliable decrease in HbA1c compared to their commercially insured peers (P=.35). Conclusions: Technology use in pediatric T1DM appears protective for both youth with a history of depression and those who are publicly insured. These data underscore the importance of universal access to technology to mitigate disparities based on comorbid mental health issues and differential access to care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".