MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117247347 · doi:10.1186/s12902-025-02122-9

Risk factors for hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W7117247347 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qiang Zhang, Haojie Zhou, Ruonan Lin, Liping Hu, Xiaoli Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Endocrine Disorders · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Management and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsType 1 diabetesDiabetes mellitusType 2 diabetesHypoglycemiaMEDLINERisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adult T1DM has a large population base, is insulin dependent, and has a high hazard of hypoglycaemia risk. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the risk factors linked to the occurrence of hypoglycemia in adult patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. This analysis aims to aid in the formulation of preventive strategies and support early-stage intervention measures. METHODS: A computerised search of nine electronic databases, all with a timeframe of construction to December 2024, was conducted to find cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies on hypoglycaemia in patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the American Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The combined odds ratio (OR) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated to evaluate the effect of the included risk factors on hypoglycaemia. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies including 54,634 participants were included. A total of 35 potentially relevant risk factors were identified. Ultimately, 18 risk factors were assessed for inclusion in the Meta-analysis, and 9 risk factors were statistically significant (P < 0.05), including disease duration (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13), history of hypoglycaemia (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.70-3.15),smoking (OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.07-1.28), diabetic nephropathy (OR = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.71-0.98), multiple daily insulin injections (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.46-2.61 ), insulin dose (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.08-1.21), hypoglycaemic unawareness (OR = 5.18, 95% CI: 1.81-14.84), impaired hypoglycaemic awareness (OR = 5.99, 95% CI: 4.62-7.75), diabetic neuropathy (OR = 2.05, 95% CI: 1.12-3.76). CONCLUSION: This study identified 9 major risk factors affecting hypoglycaemia in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus, including disease duration, history of hypoglycaemia, smoking, diabetic nephropathy (protective factor), multiple daily insulin injections, insulin dose, hypoglycaemic unawareness, impaired hypoglycaemic awareness and diabetic neuropathy. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.486

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Endocrine DisordersSame topicDiabetes Management and ResearchFrench-language works237,207