Use of the GTT@home Oral Glucose Tolerance Test Kit in Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: Performance Evaluation Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The 75-g oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) remains the optimal diagnostic test for use in pregnancy but needs to be performed in the clinical setting. The GTT@home OGTT device offers the potential to enable patients to perform the test at home using capillary blood samples. Objective: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of the GTT@home device compared to the routine National Health Service laboratory reference method using blood samples during an OGTT from pregnant women at high risk of developing gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). Methods: A total of 65 women (aged >18 y), at high risk for GDM (per the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines) were recruited for this performance evaluation. Following an overnight fast, participants went for a 75-g OGTT. Fasting and 2-hour capillary glucose levels were measured using the GTT@home device with corresponding venous samples measured in the laboratory. Results: The complete data for analysis was available for 61/65 devices. The overall bias for the GTT@home device was +0.16 mmol/L. Correlation analysis of the clinical performance of the two methods using a surveillance error grid showed 79.8% of results in the lowest, 16.9% in the "slight, lower" and 2.4% in the "slight, higher" risk categories. Only 0.8% were "moderate, lower" risk, and none were in any higher risk categories. There was agreement in the classification in 54/61 cases. The GTT@home device under-classified 2 cases and over-classified 5 cases. Conclusions: The GTT@home device worked well in a controlled, antenatal clinical setting. Differences in classification observed were generally due to small differences in glucose values close to the diagnostic cut-offs. The GTT@home device shows promise for home testing of glucose tolerance in pregnant women.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".