Comparison of three algorithms for initiation and titration of insulin glargine in insulin‐naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (既往从未使用过胰岛素的2型糖尿病患者使用三种不同的启用与滴定甘精胰岛素剂量方案的比较)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several titration algorithms can be used to adjust insulin dose and attain blood glucose targets. We compared clinical outcomes using three initiation and titration algorithms for insulin glargine in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); focusing on those receiving both metformin and sulfonylurea (SU) at baseline. METHODS: This was a pooled analysis of patient-level data from prospective, randomized, controlled 24-week trials. Patients received algorithm 1 (1 IU increase once daily, if fasting plasma glucose [FPG] > target), algorithm 2 (2 IU increase every 3 days, if FPG > target), or algorithm 3 (treat-to-target, generally 2-8 IU increase weekly based on 2-day mean FPG levels). Glycemic control, insulin dose, and hypoglycemic events were compared between algorithms. RESULTS: Overall, 1380 patients were included. In patients receiving metformin and SU at baseline, there were no significant differences in glycemic control between algorithms. Weight-adjusted dose was higher for algorithm 2 vs algorithms 1 and 3 (P = 0.0037 and P < 0.0001, respectively), though results were not significantly different when adjusted for reductions in HbA1c (0.36 IU/kg, 0.43 IU/kg, and 0.31 IU/kg for algorithms 1, 2, and 3, respectively). Yearly hypoglycemic event rates (confirmed blood glucose <56 mg/dL) were higher for algorithm 3 than algorithms 1 (P = 0.0003) and 2 (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Three algorithms for initiation and titration of insulin glargine in patients with T2DM resulted in similar levels of glycemic control, with lower rates of hypoglycemia for patients treated using simpler algorithms 1 and 2.
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 | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".