A study comparing insulin lispro mix 25 with glargine plus lispro therapy in patients with Type 2 diabetes who have inadequate glycaemic control on oral anti‐hyperglycaemic medication: results of the PARADIGM study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To test the hypothesis that initiation and intensification with 25% insulin lispro, 75% insulin lispro protamine suspension (LM25), is non-inferior to initiation and intensification with glargine + insulin lispro therapy on change from baseline in HbA(1c). METHODS: In this randomized, non-inferiority (margin of 0.4%), parallel, prospective, multi-country, 48-week, open-label study, patients (n = 426) with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications were assigned to either initiating therapy with one daily LM25 injection, progressing up to three daily injections (full analysis set n = 211; per protocol set n = 177) or initiating therapy with one daily glargine injection and progressing up to three daily insulin lispro injections (full analysis set n = 212; per protocol set n = 184). RESULTS: LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to glargine + insulin lispro therapy by study end (upper limit of 95% CI < 0.4), with a least-squares mean difference (95% CI) in HbA(1c) (LM25 minus glargine + insulin lispro) of -0.4 mmol/mol (95% CI -2.7 to 1.9); -0.04% (95% CI -0.25 to 0.17). No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were found in the percentage of patients achieving HbA(1c) targets or postprandial blood glucose levels. The increase in insulin dose, number of injections and weight change during the course of the study were similar in both groups. Patients in both groups experienced similar hypoglycaemia rates and safety profile. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with Type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with oral anti-hyperglycaemic medications, glycaemic control when initiating and intensifying with LM25 therapy was found to be non-inferior to treatment with glargine + insulin lispro therapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".