Abstract 11898: Effects of Insulin Glargine on Left Ventricular Mass and Function in Patients With Dysglycemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with increased risk for left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy and heart failure (HF). Moreover, some drugs used to treat hyperglycaemia are associated with increased risk of HF. There are limited data on the effects of exogenous insulin on left ventricular mass (LVM) and function (LVF). Therefore, we evaluated the effects of insulin glargine on LVM and LVF in the echocardiographic substudy of the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine Intervention (ORIGIN) trial (funded by Sanofi; ORIGIN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00069784). Methods: Patients aged ≥ 50 years with dysglycemia (early T2DM, impaired glucose tolerance, or impaired fasting glucose) and with cardiovascular (CV) disease or CV risk factors were randomized to receive insulin glargine (with a target fasting blood glucose level of ≤95 mg per deciliter [5.3 mmol per liter]) or standard glycemic care. Echocardiograms were performed at baseline and after 3 years. Changes in LVM, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), wall motion score (WMS), LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume (LVEDV and LVESV), E/A, and E/E’ were compared between the study groups using mixed effects modelling. Results: 564 patients aged 64 ± 8 years were evaluated; 30% were women, 84% had a history of hypertension and 32% of prior myocardial infarction. This is the largest reported study on the effects of exogenous insulin on LVM and LVF. There were no significant differences in the changes over time in LVM and LV systolic and diastolic function between the study groups (Table). Conclusions: In people with CV disease and/or CV risk factors and dysglycemia three years of treatment with insulin glargine has a neutral effect on LVM and on LV systolic and diastolic function. These findings support the CV safety of insulin glargine.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".