Automated insulin delivery system use and physical activity levels in adults with type 1 diabetes: A <scp>BETTER</scp> registry analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To explore the association between using automated insulin delivery (AID) systems and physical activity (PA) levels among people with type 1 diabetes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study including 1156 participants from the BETTER Type 1 Diabetes registry. INCLUSION CRITERIA: type 1 diabetes; aged ≥18 years old; reported PA with a validated questionnaire. PA is defined as activities lasting at least 10 consecutive minutes. Regression models (with and without adjustment for imbalanced variables) were used to compare PA levels among treatment options, with pairwise comparisons between the AID group and each group (i.e. Pump + continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), Injections + CGM, and non-CGM group). RESULTS: In the AID group, 87% of participants reported performing PA during the past 7 days (primary outcome), compared to 79% in the Pump + CGM group, 77% in the Injections + CGM group and 77% in the non-CGM group (p = 0.134 without adjustment; and p = 0.316 with adjustment for sex, age, duration of diabetes, highest educational level and annual household income). Only 28% of study participants met the target of performing at least 150 min of moderate to vigorous PA per week. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other treatment modalities, AID users within the BETTER T1D registry tended to engage in more frequent and longer PA. However, these differences may be attributed to sociodemographic factors rather than the technologies themselves. Our study also shows a low percentage of participants meeting PA recommendations. Continued research and development on diabetes technologies, more personalized interventions and public health strategies are needed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".