MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411295389 · doi:10.2337/db25-371-p

371-P: Sex, Age, and Diabetes Type—Dissecting Patterns of Real-World Level 3 Hypoglycemia (iNPHORM, USA)

2025· article· en· W4411295389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
ALEXANDRIA RATZKI-LEEWING, JASON E. BLACK, Anna R. Kahkoska, BRIDGET L. RYAN, Guangyong Zou, Stewart B. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypoglycemiaType 2 diabetesMedicineDiabetes mellitusDemographyInternal medicinePediatricsEndocrinologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction and Objective: Large-scale, real-world data on age- and sex-specific Level 3 hypoglycemia rates in type 1 or 2 diabetes (T1D, T2D) remain critically sparse. We aimed to address this gap using prospective data from the iNPHORM study. Methods: Adults (≥18 years) with T1D or T2D on insulin and/or secretagogues recruited from a US-wide probability-based internet panel completed an online screener, baseline, and up to 12 monthly follow-up questionnaires. For complete cases with ≥1 follow-up, we calculated annualized Level 3 hypoglycemia rates overall and by age, sex (assigned-at-birth), and diabetes type. Results: N=978 participants were analyzed; Table 1 reports overall and group-specific Level 3 hypoglycemia rates. Across diabetes types, adults aged 18-39 years—particularly males—reported the highest event rates, which sharply dropped after age 39, regardless of sex. In T1D, females aged 40-49 years had higher rates than males (p=0.04), a trend that persisted (non-significantly) in cohorts aged ≥60 years. In T2D, males had higher Level 3 hypoglycemia rates than females until after age 59, when increasing female rates surpassed (non-significantly) declining male rates. Conclusion: Our results reveal age- and sex-based disparities in Level 3 hypoglycemia, suggesting that younger males and older females are key at-risk groups. Targeted prevention strategies are crucial to ensure equitable outcomes across diverse populations with diabetes. Disclosure A. Ratzki-Leewing: Other Relationship; Abbott, Dexcom, Inc. Consultant; Sanofi. Other Relationship; Sanofi. Consultant; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Advisory Panel; Sanofi-Aventis U.S. J.E. Black: None. A. Kahkoska: None. K. Gandhi: None. B.L. Ryan: None. G. Zou: None. S.B. Harris: Advisory Panel; Abbott. Consultant; Abbott. Research Support; Boehringer-Ingelheim. Advisory Panel; Dexcom, Inc. Consultant; Dexcom, Inc. Research Support; Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Advisory Panel; Eli Lilly and Company. Research Support; Eli Lilly and Company. Consultant; Medscape. Advisory Panel; Novo Nordisk. Research Support; Novo Nordisk, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Advisory Panel; Sanofi. Consultant; Sanofi. Funding The iNPHORM study was funded through an investigator-initiated grant from Sanofi Global.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.284 · 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