OpT2mise: A Randomized Controlled Trial to Compare Insulin Pump Therapy with Multiple Daily Injections in the Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes—Research Design and Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In insulin-requiring type 2 diabetes patients, current insulin therapy approaches such as basal-alone or basal-bolus multiple daily injections (MDI) have not consistently provided achievement of optimal glycemic control. Previous studies have suggested a potential benefit of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in these patients. The OpT2mise study is a multicenter, randomized, trial comparing CSII with MDI in a large cohort of subjects with evidence of persistent hyperglycemia despite previous MDI therapy. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were enrolled into a run-in period for optimization of their MDI insulin regimen. Subjects showing persistent hyperglycemia (glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c] ≥8% and ≤12%) were then randomly assigned to CSII or continuing an MDI regimen for a 6-month phase followed by a single crossover of the MDI arm, switching to CSII. The primary end point is the between-group difference in mean change in HbA1c from baseline to 6 months. Secondary end points include change in mean 24-h glucose values, area under the curve and time spent in hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia, measures of glycemic excursions, change in postprandial hyperglycemia, and evaluation of treatment satisfaction. Safety end points include hypoglycemia, hospital admissions, and emergency room visits. RESULTS: When subject enrollment was completed in May 2013, 495 subjects had been enrolled in the study. The study completion for the primary end point is expected in January 2014. CONCLUSIONS: OpT2mise will represent the largest studied homogeneous cohort of type 2 diabetes patients with persistent hyperglycemia despite optimized MDI therapy. OpT2mise will help define the role of CSII in insulin intensification and define its safety, rate of hypoglycemia, patient adherence, and patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".