Optimizing the Use of Automated Insulin Delivery (AID) Systems in Routine Clinical Care of People with Type 1 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the updated Diabetes Canada Clinical Practice Guidelines recognizing automated insulin delivery (AID) as the standard of care for people with type 1 diabetes (PwT1D), clinicians play a vital role in supporting individuals to adopt and optimize use of this technology. AID systems integrate insulin pump therapy (IPT) and real-time continuous glucose monitors (rtCGM) in conjunction with a control algorithm to automate various aspects of insulin delivery. The recommendation to adopt AID is supported by robust evidence from both randomized-controlled trials and real-world studies across diverse populations, including all ages, previous experience with technology, baseline glycemia, and self-management behaviours. Glycemic benefits include consistent improvements in time in range (TIR) (often by >10%), and reductions in A1C, mean glucose levels, and hypoglycemia. Additionally, AID use has shown important improvements in person-reported outcomes, including reduced diabetes distress, reduced fear of hypoglycemia, improved quality of life, and improved sleep.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".