MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411292066 · doi:10.2337/db25-942-p

942-P: Pediatric and Adult T1D Glycemic, QoL, and Safety Outcomes of 1,013 Single Clinic Open Source AID Installations

2025· article· en· W4411292066 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Alqahtani, Nabeel Khan, Gerri Klein, Kate Hawke, TOM ELLIOTT

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicMedicineIntensive care medicinePediatricsInternal medicineInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Objective: Since 2020, BCDiabetes, a public Canadian clinic, has offered clients open source automated insulin delivery (OS AID) & ongoing support at no cost due to OS AID’s lower barrier to entry vs retail. Methods: This retrospective study analyzed client data from 14-day CGM ambulatory glucose profiles before and during use of OS AID. Clients had T1D, used Omnipod pods & Dexcom CGM, and signed a consent to use OS AID via smartphone app: Loop, iAPS or AAPS. Results: 1588 clients had OS AID installed for 1730 patient-years of exposure. 33% were pediatric & 47% were male. For adult & pediatric clients respectively, average age (range) was 42 (18-84) and 12 (2-17) years. T1D duration was 21 years for adults and 3 years for peds. Loop, iAPS & AAPS were used by 75, 10 & 15% respectively. No deaths, 2 DKAs and 8 severe hypoglycemic episodes were reported. Glycemic outcomes for 740 adult and 273 pediatric clients with paired baseline & 90 day CGM data were examined (Table 1). Outcomes by app (Loop, iAPS, AAPS) were near-identical so are pooled here. Quality of Life: 194 adult & 61 pediatric clients had paired QoL data pre- & 90 days post-OS AID. Diabetes Distress fell from 2.47 to 1.97 (p<0.0001), and Device Satisfaction rose from 6.38 to 8.2 (p<0.0001). Conclusion: OS AID systems, when installed and supported by clinicians, were safe, improved glycemia, lowered diabetes distress and improved device satisfaction. Disclosure A. Alqahtani: None. N. Khan: None. G. Klein: None. K. Hawke: None. T. Elliott: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207